4 ms·
If Intel allowed you to do "MOV RAX, [address]" (inferring the QWORD PTR part from the "RAX"), most peoples' primary aesthetic objection to the syntax would be
by pclmulqdq 2y ago
If Intel allowed you to do "MOV RAX, [address]" (inferring the QWORD PTR part from the "RAX"), most peoples' primary aesthetic objection to the syntax would be gone.
- ralferoo 2y agoMASM was also excessively wordy in many other areas. The amount you had to write to introduce a new segment or access something from another segment was ridiculous. I guess they probably improved that in later releases after TASM showed you didn't need any of that nonsense (and just had .TEXT and .DATA instead).
- rep_lodsb 2y agoWhich assembler requires that? Let me guess, GAS in Intel mode, just to make it more painful because they don't want you to use it? NASM syntax: mov rax,[Foo] ;load var into reg, QWORD is implicit add dword [Bar],1234h ;add constant to DWORD var movzx eax,byte [rsi] ;zero extend BYTE to DWORD reg
- pclmulqdq 2y agoNASM is good, but yes, GAS in Intel mode wants you to be very wordy. I believe MASM is the most annoying one for Intel syntax, though.