Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:45:45 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Samuel Mukoti <ice AT icon DOT co DOT zw>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: comp.os.msdos.djgpp ?
In-Reply-To: <000701be67a8$acd41760$df7a85c2@jesus-freak>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990307134506.26544b-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Samuel Mukoti wrote:

> (though Im still wondering why you chose to use such inline assembly =
> tecniques???? Its so difficult to grasp!

For historic reasons, GCC uses an assembler that accepts the AT&T
syntax of assembly code.  So this is why the inline assembly needs to
be in AT&T style as well.

As for the other aspects of inline assembly: they are complex
_because_ they are so powerful.  You couldn't dream to have inline
assembly that doesn't disrupt compiler optimizations without all that
flexibility.

And please don't post in HTML.