Message-Id:	<m0viKIc-000S1oC@natacha.inti.edu.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	Aaron m Clemmer <aclemmer AT juno DOT com>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 9 Jan 1997 16:23:15 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Intel ASM Possible

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 -