From: "M. Schulter" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Why not build in inline 80x86 assembly, like in borland C Date: 21 Oct 1997 19:03:04 GMT Organization: Value Net Internetwork Services Inc. Lines: 42 Message-ID: <62iu98$rfh$2@vnetnews.value.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: value.net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk Eli Zaretskii wrote: : Well, I ``waste my time'' in a variety of ways, but none of them is : because of the Gas syntax. I actually find AT&T style to be better : than Intel style. Using the AT&T style actually saves some waste of : time, because we need not bother writing a new assembler, we just use : the GNU Assembler as is. Hi, there. Please let me add that as someone who is learning assembler for the first time and has only been writing it for two months, I love the AT&T syntax. One neat feature is that it looks like standalone GAS programs in DJGPP which use C functions for i/o rather than MS-DOG specific interrupts might run in Linux or Coherent, for example, with only a few changes. Writing such standalone assembler programs is for me one of the high points of DJGPP. BTW, about a month ago, Eli advised that crt0.o would be the key to the problem of standalone GAS programs. The solution of using C-style i/o and assembling like this gcc -o myprog.exe myprog.s has proved him right. There are a few differences between DJGPP and some other "Gintel" environments (i.e. GAS + Intel i386). For example, a Linux "hello.s" seems to use '.global main' instead of 'global _main', and there may be a different convention in terms of restoring %ecx. At any rate, portability issues aside, I find AT&T a user-friendly standard. Of course, alternatives such as NASM meet some of the needs of people with different tastes or problems to solve. Most respectfully, Margo Schulter mschulter AT value DOT net