4 ms·
> loop: move.b (a0)+,d0 move.b d0,(a1)+ ... > loop: mov al,[rsi] mov [rdi],al This hurts my brain
by wang_li 2y ago
> loop: move.b (a0)+,d0
move.b d0,(a1)+
...
> loop: mov al,[rsi]
mov [rdi],al
This hurts my brain. When we invent time machines I'm going to use it to go back and slap whoever at intel came up with that operand order.
- spc476 2y agoIt hurts less if you think of it like assignment: al = [rsi] [rdi] = al
- int_19h 2y agomemcpy etc also take the destination as their first argument, and it mirrors the usual way we write assignments. Personally I always found Intel syntax to be more straightforward, but I think it's ultimately down to whatever one was exposed to first. I wonder sometimes why we keep insisting on the "OP ARG, ARG" format in general for assembly. Why not something like `MOV X -> Y` that would make it absolutely clear and unambiguous? For that matter, why not `COPY X -> Y`, since that's what it actually does?