Yeah, I wouldn't have suggested gas if it only supported at&t syntax still. Everything would be intel syntax.NickJohnson wrote:I'm not so sure about whether to choose x86 gas over nasm and similar, just because I personally, and as far as I can tell, quite a few others, don't like the AT&T syntax it uses. Maybe if we use gas, but exclusively with Intel syntax (which is supported in versions 2.10+)? I'm fine with using gcc as "the" compiler, but we should definitely stick to c99 and try to avoid GNU extensions, just for portability.
Debian Repository for Cross-Compilers
-
chase
- Site Admin
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:46 pm
- Libera.chat IRC: chase_osdev
- Location: Texas
- Discord: chase/matt.heimer
- Contact:
Re: Debian Repository for Cross-Compilers
-
pcmattman
- Member
- Posts: 2566
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:15 pm
- Libera.chat IRC: miselin
- Location: Sydney, Australia (I come from a land down under!)
- Contact:
Re: Debian Repository for Cross-Compilers
It's easy to just not use the provided AS, but it is a core part of GCC. If someone wishes to use NASM in their project, they simply set up their build system to use NASM.I'm not so sure about whether to choose x86 gas over nasm and similar, just because I personally, and as far as I can tell, quite a few others, don't like the AT&T syntax it uses. Maybe if we use gas, but exclusively with Intel syntax (which is supported in versions 2.10+)? I'm fine with using gcc as "the" compiler, but we should definitely stick to c99 and try to avoid GNU extensions, just for portability.
Also, nasm doesn't have the same number of problems when using a host's nasm build as GCC does.