From: "M. Schulter" <mschulter AT value DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Why not build in inline 80x86 assembly, like in borland C
Date: 5 Oct 1997 23:32:03 GMT
Organization: Value Net Internetwork Services Inc.
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <61981j$9d8$1@vnetnews.value.net>
References: <34361EA4 DOT BFFADE9E AT worldonline DOT nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: value.net
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Reinier Heeres <rwh AT worldonline DOT nl> wrote:
: Hi!

: 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???

: Reinier

Hello, there.

You've raised a delicate question, because maybe each assembly language
programmer tends to assume that her/his preferred syntax is the "normal"
one. Some other people in this thread have already pointed out that to
them, AT&T is "normal" and Intel a bit "strange" <grin>.

Personally I prefer AT&T. I could give various reasons, the most likely
one is that I am learning assembler for the first time with GAS, which
uses AT&T. Actually, the 'source, destination' syntax of GAS is also the
norm for the PDP-11 and Vax, so there's lot of good precedent for it.

Interestingly, however DJGPP's fsdb (the full-screen debugger) uses Intel
syntax, and this is probably useful, since I'm going to encounter both
versions, and should be able to read both.

Please see Section 17 of the DJGPP FAQ for more information on these
issues, and 17.3 in particular on NASM and conversion options.

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter AT value DOT net