3 ms·

That started out fairly nice, but then they used AT&T assembly syntax, which made it worthless. But opinions aside, it does look like a nice reference and exer

by Artlav 10y ago

That started out fairly nice, but then they used AT&T assembly syntax, which made it worthless. But opinions aside, it does look like a nice reference and exercise piece.

adamnemecek 10y ago
Yeah, I don't understand why some people cling to it so much.
chrisseaton 10y ago
> they used AT&T assembly syntax, which made it worthless This is so silly. The two assembly syntaxes are equivalent and include just as much information. It doesn't make much to mentally flick between the two.
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  While they are the same, Intel is much easier to read.
  - aerioux 10y ago
    this is an older version -- the actual book this is excerpted from uses Intel mostly now (the canonical CSPP book) and also has many revisions to 'modernize' it, such as reducing the x86 sections in favor of x64
- SilasX 10y ago
  Oy. With respect, you're both wrong. AT&T's is uglier, regardless of the equivalence, and this matters for the cognitive load. But it's not so bad that anyone who uses it should be dismissed.
- kabdib 10y ago
  Having multiple syntaxes and having to switch between them is error-prone and leads to bugs. Except in cases where manufacturers are totally clueless about syntax, I have far preferred using the "official" assembly, rather than the Unix version. (In some happy cases these are the same). Thank God I don't write assembly language much any more; maybe a few hundred to a thousand lines on a modern embedded product. At that level, it's still fun. [I've been using assembly since the late 1970s. Z-80 and 6502 FTW! :-)]
harry8 10y ago
gdb: set disassembly-flavor intel gcc inline: asm(".intel_syntax noprefix"); objdump: objdump -M intel -d program_name All the fun of arguments over goddamn bracing conventions in C or C++. ATT is src,dest intel is dest,src Commit that to memory, the rest follows, get on with life which is much too short...

by Artlav 10y ago

That started out fairly nice, but then they used AT&T assembly syntax, which made it worthless. But opinions aside, it does look like a nice reference and exercise piece.

adamnemecek 10y ago

Yeah, I don't understand why some people cling to it so much.

chrisseaton 10y ago

> they used AT&T assembly syntax, which made it worthless This is so silly. The two assembly syntaxes are equivalent and include just as much information. It doesn't make much to mentally flick between the two.

adamnemecek 10y ago
While they are the same, Intel is much easier to read.
- aerioux 10y ago
  this is an older version -- the actual book this is excerpted from uses Intel mostly now (the canonical CSPP book) and also has many revisions to 'modernize' it, such as reducing the x86 sections in favor of x64
SilasX 10y ago
Oy. With respect, you're both wrong. AT&T's is uglier, regardless of the equivalence, and this matters for the cognitive load. But it's not so bad that anyone who uses it should be dismissed.
kabdib 10y ago
Having multiple syntaxes and having to switch between them is error-prone and leads to bugs. Except in cases where manufacturers are totally clueless about syntax, I have far preferred using the "official" assembly, rather than the Unix version. (In some happy cases these are the same). Thank God I don't write assembly language much any more; maybe a few hundred to a thousand lines on a modern embedded product. At that level, it's still fun. [I've been using assembly since the late 1970s. Z-80 and 6502 FTW! :-)]

harry8 10y ago

gdb: set disassembly-flavor intel gcc inline: asm(".intel_syntax noprefix"); objdump: objdump -M intel -d program_name All the fun of arguments over goddamn bracing conventions in C or C++. ATT is src,dest intel is dest,src Commit that to memory, the rest follows, get on with life which is much too short...