4 ms·
Interesting discussion of some possible pitfalls where AT&T syntax allows you to shoot yourself in the foot. But to my mind the most important argument is the
by tom_mellior 5y ago
Interesting discussion of some possible pitfalls where AT&T syntax allows you to shoot yourself in the foot.
But to my mind the most important argument is the one mentioned towards the end as a minor one: The official documentation uses Intel syntax. Why would you make your life harder by translating that syntax into a different one?
- rurban 5y agoOnly the official documentation for Intel CPU's. Almost nobody uses Intel CPU's writing asm, most asm writers are on arm or mips, in the embedded world. AT&T is dominant, Intel syntax is for the poor Windows folks.
- CalChris 5y agoI do and my assembler is clang. .intel_syntax
- tom_mellior 5y agoFrom what I remember, ARM docs also put the destination register first, use no sigils for marking registers and immediates, and use a not-entirely-obscure syntax for expressing scaling and such in addressing modes. What aspect of ARM's docs do you consider AT&T-like?
- pjmlp 5y agoI started coding x86 Assembly on the glory days of TASM and MASM and the reality looks quite different on this side. We are so poor with the hegemony of desktop and game consoles CPUs.