OSDev.org

Which sintax is better to develop, Intel x86 or AT&T x86 (in your opinion)? And which assembler is better (in your opinion)?

It's spelled syntax. And the choice is yours, obviously whichever is easier for you to understand.

Hi,

arming wrote:Which sintax is better to develop, Intel x86 or AT&T x86 (in your opinion)? And which assembler is better (in your opinion)?

As with C(++) vs. ASM, Windows vs. Linux, Vim vs. VS etc..., this is generally a way to start a flamewar. I prefer intel syntax because that's what I learned on. Others prefer AT&T for the same sort of reason. Often it just comes down to which way an individual 'pictures' data flowing.

arming wrote:Which sintax is better to develop, Intel x86 or AT&T x86 (in your opinion)? And which assembler is better (in your opinion)?

Define 'better'.

Cheers,
Adam

I would say neither but then again i am a motorola fanboy.....

AJ wrote:Hi,

arming wrote:Which sintax is better to develop, Intel x86 or AT&T x86 (in your opinion)? And which assembler is better (in your opinion)?

As with C(++) vs. ASM, Windows vs. Linux, Vim vs. VS etc..., this is generally a way to start a flamewar. I prefer intel syntax because that's what I learned on. Others prefer AT&T for the same sort of reason. Often it just comes down to which way an individual 'pictures' data flowing.

arming wrote:Which sintax is better to develop, Intel x86 or AT&T x86 (in your opinion)? And which assembler is better (in your opinion)?

Define 'better'.

Cheers,
Adam

For me, better is... I don't know, it depends. Maybe AT&T it's better to work with net connections (that would be better for me). Well, I'm going to do specified questions:
To work with ASM and C, what is better (AT&T or Intel)?
AT&T is portable at all the x86? And Intel?
Which is easier to learN?
Which works better with network?

AT&T vs. Intel is about syntax, not about semantics. You can express exactly the same things in both syntaxes, they look just a bit different. If you think it has anything to do with network or even just if you think that one of them is easier to understand like Brynet seems to imply, you have a more fundamental problem and should go back to learning some basics.

It's purely a matter of taste.

Kevin wrote:AT&T vs. Intel is about syntax, not about semantics. You can express exactly the same things in both syntaxes, they look just a bit different. If you think it has anything to do with network or even just if you think that one of them is easier to understand like Brynet seems to imply, you have a more fundamental problem and should go back to learning some basics.

It's purely a matter of taste.

OK, I've expressed badly. I know that the two do more or less the same but with different syntax. I want to say that maybe Intel syntax it's easier to do a netboot, for example.

Hi,

arming wrote:OK, I've expressed badly. I know that the two do more or less the same but with different syntax. I want to say that maybe Intel syntax it's easier to do a netboot, for example.

No - they do exactly the same. To answer your questions:

* They both allow you to interface with C code (for GCC inline assembly, the default is AT&T, but that can be configured on the command line). That's more to do with the ABI.
* They both work with x86 (16 bit / IA32 / AMD64)
* The easiest one to learn is probably whichever one you learn first.
* They can both be used to interface with network devices in the same manner.

These are two dialects which do the same thing - they both get converted to the same opcodes so you end up with the same binary.

Cheers,
Adam