Date:	Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:48:37 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>" <paganini AT madisontelco DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Assembler types
In-Reply-To:	<7bsmc2$rvt$1@news3.infoave.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990307134817.26544e-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Paganini <Nathan E. Banks> wrote:

> So neither one is really better than the other...it's just religious...like
> whether to comment or to document?

No, it's not religious.  GCC produces its assembly output in the AT&T
style, so it must use Gas which accepts that style.  NASM doesn't
accept AT&T style, so it cannot be used with the compiler.  But you
*can* use NASM to compile assembly-language modules.

- Raw text -