Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/10/04/16:28:01
At 09:38 10/4/1997 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I would like to know if there are any other guys who'd like to see
>> NORMAL 80x86 assembly inline in their programs? Why isn't it build in?
>> Only because of the portability???
>The asm() feature of gcc isn't something the compiler interprets, it's
>something the compiler dumps into it's outgoing asm stream along with
>all its other asm statements. So, the reason it's AT&T syntax is
>because that's what the other 10,000 lines of assembler that gcc just
>Besides, some of us think AT&T *is* the "normal" assembly, and Intel
>was the one that was on drugs when they designed their assembler
You are welcome to rewrite the compiler back end to generate Intel-style
ASM, which will let you use Intel ASM in your inline. It would probably just
be a matter of changing some text in the GCC sources. Then again, is it
really worth it?
eldredge AT ap DOT net
- Raw text -