3 ms·
It becomes more natural/C-like if you think of ADD foo bar not as foo + bar but as foo += bar And then apply a prefix syntax correction, to en
by patrec 6y ago
It becomes more natural/C-like if you think of
ADD foo bar
not as
foo + bar
but as
foo += bar
And then apply a prefix syntax correction, to end up with
+= foo bar
(Or, equivalently, always mentally add the word "TO" to each operator that modifies an argument, which is most)
Also, most intel instructions use one or two arguments as input, and modify one of them as output. It sort of makes sense to have the output (or input/output) argument always be in the same position, regardless of whether an instruction takes 1 or 2 args. BTW, even in riscv where "add" takes three args, i.e. the form is a = b + c, the output-only argument a comes first.
- titzer 6y ago> foo += bar Yeah, this is how I think about it too. It's natural to have the destination operand always as the first one (i.e. left hand side). I think the GNU tools all use the AT&T syntax (destination is last), and I hate it.