Chronicles of the Crusades: Intel vs ATT

[quok]

<insert propaganda against AT&T syntax>

There's no need for propaganda wars.

I don't care for either syntax honestly. Hell I don't even really like asm to begin with. I simply prefer to use GNU as over anything else as it's already part of binutils. I find it easier to use one toolchain than require potential users of my OS to have all sorts of tools (and perhaps have to play dependency hell) just trying to get the darn thing to compile!

I guess it's for that reason that I prefer AT&T syntax. There is the '.intel_syntax' or whatever statement though, that'll allow GNU as to use what you may be more familiar or happier with. That either wasn't available when I picked up ASM or more likely I didn't know about it. And you can't teach this old dog new tricks.

[Troy Martin]

Sixteen-bit Intel
Syntax assembly is the
winner of the war.

[CodeCat]

I've no real preference for either syntax, but I do think AT&T syntax has some features (like sigils to mark registers and immediates explicitly) that are good. The source-destination order is confusing though.

[quok]

As I tried to say in my post above (despite going a bit OT in my reply to combuster), you don't need to switch to AT&T syntax just to use GNU as, so those that prefer intel syntax or simply don't care but want to use GNU as to reduce dependencies on a certain toolchain can throw in '.intel_syntax' at the top of the file as needed.

The source-destination order is confusing though.

I don't really care for the source-destination order of AT&T syntax either. I have the belief that since the C standard prefers dest - src ordering (just look at the prototype for memcpy to see what I mean), everything else should as well. As wrong as it may be, I know a couple of people that would agree with me.

[Combuster]

In any case this discussion is not helpful to the OP and is only bound to start holy wars.

Topic split and archived.