From: mwood AT indyvax DOT iupui DOT edu (Mark H. Wood)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: assembler
Message-ID: <1997Jan1.092322.27563@indyvax.iupui.edu>
Date: 1 Jan 97 09:23:22 -0500
References: <32C7CD0C DOT 5B96 AT netime DOT com> <32C87A48 DOT 6771 AT cs DOT com>
Lines: 25
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <32C87A48 DOT 6771 AT cs DOT com>, "John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com> writes:
> derek greene wrote:
>> 
>> has anyone that does the work on djgpp ever thought about implementing
>> intel syntax? this at&t thing is a pain in the butt, it never compiles
>> it for me and it is starting to piss me off
> 
> It's just a question of learning the new syntax.  Most users who use
> AT&T syntax have found it to be superior to Intel once they get used to it.

Indeed, those of us who were trained on other assemblers may feel that the
Intel syntax is backwards and broken.  But one thing to keep firmly in mind is
that the assembler comes with the compiler mainly for the *compiler's* use, not
ours.  gas isn't made to be programmer-friendly but compiler-friendly.

(Now you've got me to thinking about the old CDC 6000 Fortran compiler, which
even offered you a choice of whether to use the special-purpose assembler that
came with it, or the relatively friendly one made for humans.  Or 360 Assembler
F, with its wealth of symbol-table manipulation goodies.  Or MACRO-10, with its
unmatched macro facilities and ability to produce arbitrary binary output....)
-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead Systems Programmer    +1 317 274 0749   [@disclaimer@]
MWOOD AT INDYVAX DOT IUPUI DOT EDU                  Finger for more information.
I am endeavoring to construct a mnemonic circuit using stone knives and
bearskins.				-- Spock