Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id:	<199710070151.SAA24341@adit.ap.net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	baldo AT chasque DOT apc DOT org, Derek Greene <topcoder AT mindspring DOT com>
From:	Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
Subject:	Re: Why not build in inline 80x86 assembly, like in borland C
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

At 01:19  10/6/1997 -0300, baldo AT chasque DOT apc DOT org wrote:

>	I think that it would be nice to incorporate the Intel Sintax without
>removing the support for At&T sintax. For example using asm_intel() keyword
>for that matter and the normal asm() for At&T.
>	This would help people porting diverse programs with inline intel assembly
>sintax. I think that the Intel sintax is very important like the At&T
>sintax, so it must be also supported.
Unfortunately not possible. Inline asm is passed directly through to the
assembler (after some simple substitutions by the compiler to deal with %
operands). No assembler exists that can assemble both syntaxes (syntaces?),
and only one assembler can be used on any one file, so it cannot be done.
You have to use one or the other, and currently intel is not supported (and
may never be).

Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net

- Raw text -