OSDev.org

Hey,
just set a poll about these syntaxes, vote, and post your opinion right here.
I personally don't like ATT very much because of these %,$,etc. "prefixes", but everybody who is using GCC + GAS are liking ATT more than Intel syntax. Maybe because it's their only choice, maybe because of different ways to write code, etc...

Regards
inflater

Im not much of an "assembler" my self, but i understand the basics, and though AT&T might me more logical in some ways than Intel syntax, but as you say, with Intel you avoid, among onter stuff, those weird % and $'s which i much prefer.

Im no expert, but thats my view of it.

indeed the GCC GAS thingy is the main reason why i like AT&T. I used a lot of NASM early on but that gave some intergration problems and register allocation combined with C/C++ was a b*tch. But again mainly the GAS/GCC combinatie makes itr worth while.

Why the pointless poll(s)? It's like asking which do you prefer speaking, English or French? Does it really matter, other than what you are most familiar with? On the other hand, it is a good question if we're considering writing an assembly tutorial for beginners and are wondering what the best syntax to use is. Is that the intention? If not, to General Ramblings with you!

Regards,
John.

binutils wrote:http://idc.sourceforge.net/viva.avi

That's cool!

I voted Intel, just because it's what I'm used to. I'll learn AT&T syntax when I need to port my OS to another architecture... Maybe when I retire in 25 years.

I prefer Intel syntax, i just think its a bit cleaner. However I routinely write in both so it doesn't really matter to me

I was converted when I started my C++ rewrite.

All the assembly in Bran's kernel tutorial was rewritten (by me) into AT&T syntax. I just find it easier to look at and understand.

At and t was sytax was designed with portablity in mind .. . although there
is nothing like a really portable assembler ... The gas was made to
serve as a backend to gcc(which all feeds it with correct code) and not for hand coding .... it systax seems to be somewhat wired .... and it only supports a subset of the intel instruction set ..not the entire intel instruction set... and i personally i prefer the intel version......

But At/t syntax is cosidered conforming to "standards" and it wont
hurt learning at/t syntax ... It has some logic in it and is not entirely
bad either....

I voted for Intel syntax, since that's what makes more sense to me, and I enjoy writing. However, I hardly ever write Intel syntax, because I'm too busy using GCC/GAS with it's AT&T syntax. I know you can switch it, but I've never bothered.

With GCC you can use "-masm=intel" option to switch to Intel's syntax .

Intel syntax! I am not very proficient in assembly - AT & T is just way strange...

Seems Im the only one who voted both. The intel syntax is like English, and the ATT syntax is like French. No explication.