Message-Id: Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" Organization: INTI To: Michael Flegel , djgpp AT delorie DOT com Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:05:52 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: spawning NASM from GCC? Precedence: bulk Hallo Michael: You wrote: > I was just wondering if there is any way in which I can spawn NASM > instead of AS for inline-assembly in GCC. GCC generate AT&T syntax assembler, you can't modify that. So even is you manage to spawn to NASM the code will be in AT&T syntax, so no advantages. > Because, frankly AT&T syntax is > giving me the shits. I converted 100Kb of Intel 16 bit code into GAS syntax 32 bit code last year, isn't so hard. > I always thought that anything non-intel was better, Intel have the ability to tweast all they made ;-) > but I don't think it's the case here. Hmmm ... I'm not so sure I think that AT&T syntax is more natural but GAS is inferior that TASM. > (Who ever heard of differentiating > between movl, movw and movb, when it's obvious from the kinds of operands > you use...) Intel!!!, do you ever used: mov word ptr?, I prefer movw! > Oh, and a related question: How do I make procs public in NASM, and how > do I include it in GCC? (extrn void _procedure(void) ??) I don't know, in AS is .globl ... ;-) > Anyone who can spawn, use or fight over NASM vs AS, please email me, > since newsgroups are very slow over my server... I'm sending to both. Gruesse, SET ------------------------------------ 0 -------------------------------- Visit my home page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552 Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer) Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA TE: +(541) 759 0013