Message-Id:	<m0wHqd8-000S1jC@natacha.inti.edu.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	Michael Flegel <FLEGEL AT physnet DOT uni-hamburg DOT de>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:05:52 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: spawning NASM from GCC?

Hallo Michael:

You wrote:
> I was just wondering if there is any way in which I can spawn NASM 
> instead of AS for inline-assembly in GCC. 
GCC generate AT&T syntax assembler, you can't modify that. So even is you 
manage to spawn to NASM the code will be in AT&T syntax, so no advantages.

> Because, frankly AT&T syntax is 
> giving me the shits. 
I converted 100Kb of Intel 16 bit code into GAS syntax 32 bit code last year, 
isn't so hard.

> I always thought that anything non-intel was better, 
Intel have the ability to tweast all they made ;-)

> but I don't think it's the case here. 
Hmmm ... I'm not so sure I think that AT&T syntax is more natural but GAS is 
inferior that TASM.

> (Who ever heard of differentiating 
> between movl, movw and movb, when it's obvious from the kinds of operands 
> you use...)
Intel!!!, do you ever used: mov word ptr?, I prefer movw!

> Oh, and a related question: How do I make procs public in NASM, and how 
> do I include it in GCC? (extrn void _procedure(void) ??)
I don't know, in AS is .globl ... ;-)

> Anyone who can spawn, use or fight over NASM vs AS, please email me, 
> since newsgroups are very slow over my server...
I'm sending to both.

Gruesse, SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -