Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:04:38 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Norberto Alfredo Bensa <ceo AT nbensacomputers DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Assembler smal question
In-Reply-To: <OE62GHEW1Q5kAkVDdsv0000143f@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010430120426.15144J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Norberto Alfredo Bensa wrote:

> > Second thing is that GCC doesn't support native for x86 CPU assembly
> > language syntax but instead it supports AT&T syntax wich is more complicated
> 
> It does, if you use binutils 2.10 or later... or am I missing something?

You are missing something.  Gas, the GNU assembler which comes with
Binutils 2.10 does indeed support Intel syntax, but for _inline_
assembly, you need GCC to invoke Gas with an approriate option, and to
be able to translate its extended inline assembly facilities into
Intel syntax as well.  Since GCC doesn't do that (AFAIK), inline
assembly is still limited to AT&T syntax.