Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199710042025.NAA27139@adit.ap.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: rwh AT worldonline DOT nl
From: Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
Subject: Re: Why not build in inline 80x86 assembly, like in borland C
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 09:38  10/4/1997 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> 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.
Hear hear.
You are welcome to rewrite the compiler back end to generate Intel-style
ASM, which will let you use Intel ASM in your inline. It would probably just
be a matter of changing some text in the GCC sources. Then again, is it
really worth it?

Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net