This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: asm syntax


ok. point taken. I'll stick with at&t syntax. fyi, I've no background
in windows/dos programming, just find intel syntax much cleaner and I
began with yasm on linux.

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 04:08:13PM +0000, Kenneth O'Brien wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am working on SSE4.2 enchanced string functions. Are there any
>> objections to writing new assembly code in Intel syntax over AT&T.
>>
>> All current asm(that I've seen) is written in AT&T, but gas supports
>> Intel which (IMHO) is friendlier to the programmer.
>
> s/friendlier to the programmer/friendlier to a programmer with a DOS
> or Windows background/
>
> Rich


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]