Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/09/15:35:29
Aaron m Clemmer <aclemmer AT juno DOT com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 18:42:36 EST chambersb AT juno DOT com (Benjamin D Chambers)
> writes:
> >I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
> >AT&T syntax makes more sense and is easier than Intel.
> >YES, I did start on Intel (a few _years_ before using AT&T syntax,
> >actually.)
> >If you know ASM, it shouldn't take more than a day or two to get the
> >basics, and after a week you shouldn't have any problems (unless you
> >use _really_ cryptic code).
>
> I guess I"ll throw in my two cents... =) I've used both syntaxs, and I
> prefer Intel. Some parts are strange (like 'dest, src', but you get used
> to it), but all in all, Intel code ends up looking a lot cleaner and
> easier to read... having all of these symbols scattered around your code
> makes for hard reading, so I guess my reasons are based entirely on
> artistic merit. =) Oh, and not to mention the fact that converting to
> AT&t by hand takes too much typing.
Hmmm... looks like you are talking about the INLINE ASM of GCC not
the pure AT&T syntax, there are no much difference in terms of
"artistic" or keys to type, even worst, AT&T don't need "DWord Ptr",
etc so is even more compact.
But I disagree with some strange translations of command that are
very difficult to guess.
SET
--------------- 0 --------------------------------
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET).
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013
- Raw text -