4 ms·

AT&T syntax is actually the common one in most low-level programming if you count by architectures and most likely also by code size produced, if only because G

AT&T syntax is actually the common one in most low-level programming if you count by architectures and most likely also by code size produced, if only because GCC has/had been the de facto compiler for new chip uarchs for more than a decade (helped by the fact that everyone wants their chips to run Linux). Nowadays GCC and LLVM support both styles and archs pick whatever they prefer and nobody cares, really. > either fork the project, or submit a patch with a fix using Intel syntax. That sounds a bit extreme? Reading/writing in both styles is not an issue for anyone that has dealt with x86 professionally.

oblio 6y ago
And apparently Rust already supports both.
exmadscientist 6y ago
>AT&T syntax is actually the common one in most low-level programming Is this actually true? Admittedly I've done mostly x86 and ARM for the past several years (almost entirely Cortex-M, so v6-M and v7-M profiles, using ARM's GCC builds for embedded) and the only toolchain that prefers AT&T syntax is x86 GCC and those explicitly trying to be compatible with it. All the ARM inline assembly I've written, targetting GCC backends, has been ARM syntax, and likewise for all the disassembly output. The DSPs and DSP-likes are... always weird. So I try to stay away from them and make them someone else's problem. But I don't think they use AT&T syntax either. It doesn't work so well for truly strange processors anyway. I'm one of those guys who tends to have the makefiles output the disassembly, and have it open on the other monitor while I'm working, so I'd notice if it were different....