3 ms·

I remember reading a long time ago about the syntaxes and the author said that it is because AT&T assembled faster. Makes sense considering that the intel syn

by gens 10y ago

I remember reading a long time ago about the syntaxes and the author said that it is because AT&T assembled faster. Makes sense considering that the intel syntax requires some backtracking (or more of temporary data). (please don't upvote if you agree, i'm at 69 points :)

nkurz 10y ago
Apparently someone ignored your request, so I fixed it for you.
pcwalton 10y ago
> Makes sense considering that the intel syntax requires some backtracking (or more of temporary data). That would imply that the Intel syntax is not LL(1) or LR(1). Are you sure?