OSDev.org

Hi,

nedbrek wrote:Sorry, I'm not trying to troll. It honestly does bug me.

Why should the entire wiki style be changed just because it annoys you? We do have other users. The official decision has been made on how to deal with the English used on the wiki.

End of subject, please.

Cheers,
Adam

I'm gonna assume that this thread is fine to revive considering the topic..

Can we have a wiki-wide assembly syntax choice? It would seem to be AT&T but I still see Intel style in places. (and if it is AT&T, may I spark the debate of changing it to Intel)

IMO it should be Intel, AT&T style gives me a headache when trying to read code in it .
AT&T is GCC default, but then most other assemblers use Intel, as well as Wikipedia (as far as I've seen).
However, I do think that inline assembly should stay AT&T.

Terrible idea.

If you are serious about OS development you should be equally happy using Intel or AT&T syntax (and PwerPC, ARM, etc. assembler). If not, it's not rocket science. Take 5 minutes out to learn the differences.

Perhaps parallel texts might be sensible, similar to how I set up my (still unfinished, admittedly) updated user page on data structures in assembly language. Though as I mentioned when I started that page, it would be useful if the Tabbed Tables plugin for Mediawiki were installed, but I doubt that the admins would want to take the trouble to do that just for that one use case.

However, for pages which are specific to x86 (i.e., almost all of them on this wiki), the differences between the code samples as given in AT&T syntax and Intel syntax isn't really enough to justify that.

Honestly, while the differences between those two syntax styles are pretty fundamental, in many cases the differences in syntax between different Intel-style assemblers (e.g., MASM, NASM, FASM, and YASM) are just as significant for the things the code examples are meant to demonstrate, especially if any data structures or macros are involved.

iansjack wrote:Terrible idea.

If you are serious about OS development you should be equally happy using Intel or AT&T syntax (and PwerPC, ARM, etc. assembler). If not, it's not rocket science. Take 5 minutes out to learn the differences.

Oh I know the differences, and I can read/write both, but I just think that having a same style for everything makes sense. Being equally happy is a hard thing to do when humans inherently prefer some things to others.

(I just reread your text that in fourth person:)
Fair enough though, I understand your point

I'd like to use <source> blocks for the "plain English" code of the CAL compiler; <source lang="CAL">. Preserving newlines is good style for this language and necessary for comments, so I'm using <pre> tags, but I could use syntax highlighting for comments. The only highlighting wanted is to color text from a single backslash to the end of the line in comment color. (This is all the IDE does.)

If it's convenient, it would be nice if the source were shown in the regular proportional font, but it's not necessary at all.

Here is an example of CAL code on the wiki:
https://wiki.osdev.org/Plain_English_Pr ... uage_issue