I don't see difference between mov eax, ebp and lea eax, [ebp]

[jackheroes]

I don't see difference between "mov eax, ebp" and " lea eax, [ebp] "
I think lea instruction is troublesome here, it dereferences ebp and gets its' address again, like c++( p1 = &(*p) ).
Why don't just use mov eax, ebp. I have tested both statements, they resulted the same thing.

[qWord]

I don't see difference between "mov eax, ebp" and " lea eax, [ebp] "

same operation encoded in two different instructions.
In your case LEA does exact the same as MOV. However, LEA has the capacity to do some additional arithmetic (SIB).

Code Select Expand

lea eax,[ebp+4*ecx-4]

[dedndave]

you just need to choose the right instruction for the job
in your case, i suspect MOV is the right one

LEA is used if the CPU needs to calculate the address
for example, if you wanted the address of [EBP+4], rather than [EBP]

Code Select Expand

        lea     eax,[ebp+4]
that is like moving EBP into EAX, then adding 4 to it

[raleeper]

The 2 instructions assemble as:
mov, eax, ebp           8bc5
lea, eax, [ebp]           8d4500

but

lea, eax, [ebp+4]       8d4504

[dedndave]

yes - all the [EBP] intructions are coded with a byte offset

8D4500 is actually

Code Select Expand

        lea     [ebp+00]