>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

>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....