Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 09:38:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199710041338.JAA27776@delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: rwh AT worldonline DOT nl
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <34361EA4.BFFADE9E@worldonline.nl> (message from Reinier Heeres
	on Sat, 04 Oct 1997 12:47:01 +0200)
Subject: Re: Why not build in inline 80x86 assembly, like in borland C
Precedence: bulk


> 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
produced are.

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
syntax.