3 ms·

Why do people use the AT&T syntax for assembly language? It sucks and needs to die [1] [2] [3]. I would support an effort to remove it from the GNU toolchain.

by csense 14y ago

Why do people use the AT&T syntax for assembly language? It sucks and needs to die [1] [2] [3]. I would support an effort to remove it from the GNU toolchain. [1] http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/07/giving-up-on-at-style-assembler-syntax.html http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/07/giving-up-on-at-style-as... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5498967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5498967 [3] http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=19558 http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=19558

tjdetwiler 14y ago
Lots of people learn on AT&T syntax and don't know Intel syntax.
- maximilianburke 14y ago
  If you're going to be spending time writing/reading assembly there's a good chance you'll need to refer to the architecture manuals and, for Intel, those only use the Intel syntax. Matching the reference material I think should be reason enough to move away from AT&T syntax.
vidarh 14y ago
Bah. Coming from writing M68k assembly: Intel syntax needs to die. AT&T has some warts, but I still find it vastly more readable. x86 assembly is an evil enough mess without using a syntax seemingly designed to make it even more horrific.
exDM69 14y ago
> Why do people use the AT&T syntax for assembly language? It sucks and needs to die [1] [2] [3]. It's just the syntax. Get over it. You get used to it in a few days, and using Intel syntax over AT&T doesn't make your programs any better. > I would support an effort to remove it from the GNU toolchain. That would break a lot of existing applications, removing it from the GNU toolchain would be the easy part. You can still use .intel_syntax directive with the GNU toolchain or use another assembler like NASM or YASM. But in practice it's often easiest to just avoid hassling with assemblers and toolchains and use the AT&T syntax, despite the fact that you might not like it.

by csense 14y ago

tjdetwiler 14y ago

Lots of people learn on AT&T syntax and don't know Intel syntax.

maximilianburke 14y ago
If you're going to be spending time writing/reading assembly there's a good chance you'll need to refer to the architecture manuals and, for Intel, those only use the Intel syntax. Matching the reference material I think should be reason enough to move away from AT&T syntax.

vidarh 14y ago

Bah. Coming from writing M68k assembly: Intel syntax needs to die. AT&T has some warts, but I still find it vastly more readable. x86 assembly is an evil enough mess without using a syntax seemingly designed to make it even more horrific.

exDM69 14y ago

> Why do people use the AT&T syntax for assembly language? It sucks and needs to die [1] [2] [3]. It's just the syntax. Get over it. You get used to it in a few days, and using Intel syntax over AT&T doesn't make your programs any better. > I would support an effort to remove it from the GNU toolchain. That would break a lot of existing applications, removing it from the GNU toolchain would be the easy part. You can still use .intel_syntax directive with the GNU toolchain or use another assembler like NASM or YASM. But in practice it's often easiest to just avoid hassling with assemblers and toolchains and use the AT&T syntax, despite the fact that you might not like it.