Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:7322
From: pengzh AT ix DOT netcom DOT com (PENG ZHOU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Intel asm rather than AT&T asm under djgpp?
Date: 16 Aug 1996 00:04:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4v0dto$3i2@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <Dvnswo DOT F9z AT serval DOT net DOT wsu DOT edu> <4un0jn$puk AT snail DOT stack DOT urc DOT tue DOT nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pas-ca6-16.ix.netcom.com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In <4un0jn$puk AT snail DOT stack DOT urc DOT tue DOT nl> jan AT stack DOT urc DOT tue DOT nl (Jan Oonk)
writes: 
>
>M@ (hixson AT mail DOT wsu DOT edu) wrote:
>: Hello,
>:    I am interested in using djgpp to do some C/ASM programming.
>: However, I was wondering if it is at all possible to use Intel's asm
>: programming syntax rather than AT&T's.  All of the examples I've
seen
>: on this newsgroup use the AT&T style, and I can't find anything in
the
>: djgpp docs that say "You can __*NOT*__ use Intel style assembly with
>: djgpp."  
>:    No, I haven't installed it yet.  I'm hoping someone could answer
>: this for me before I go to the trouble.
>:    Please reply via email. 
>:    Thanks in advance,
>:      -M@
>
>Ta2As isn't finished... Use obj2coff instead...
>
>Maybe oneday we'll finish ta2as but we think obj2coff is far
superior....
>
>CU!
>-- 
>Please EMAIL all replys to Jan AT stack DOT urc DOT tue DOT nl
Yes, I think obj2coff is far superior. One problem though, I think you
need a Assembler to do the translate to obj part, so it actually isn't
about Doing Intel ASM in DJGPP.  Only .OBJ file convert in DJGPP, I
agree that Obj2Coff is good though

---------
pengzh AT ix DOT netcom DOT com