Re:I decided to make a graphics card for my Amiga 2000
by wolfgke on Sunday April 17, 2016 @11:18AM
(#11514782)
> Intel's syntax is most common, not the AT&T one.
I'd be a little bit more careful with such a statement: Under Windows (and formerly DOS) Intel syntax is the common one, while under GNU/Linux and OSX the AT&T one is used.
> If you translate mov into =, the syntax makes much more sense than AT&T.
Though I prefer the Intel syntax, I'd be careful with "makes sense" here: According to http://stackoverflow.com/a/4119217/497193 people who grew up with MIPS seem to prefer the AT&T syntax since it is much more similar to MIPS assembler.
Re:I decided to make a graphics card for my Amiga 2000
by pjmlp on Sunday April 17, 2016 @01:50PM
(#11515453)
Apparently you missed my second paragraph.
Only UNIX based OSes follow AT&T, for obvious reasons.
Re:I decided to make a graphics card for my Amiga 2000
by Annatar on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:23AM
(#11519674)
It has nothing to do with the operating system. AT & T syntax follows the same style as pretty much any other computer and processor in existence. (Exceptions exist, but they are exotic oddities.)
Re:I decided to make a graphics card for my Amiga 2000
by Annatar on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:19AM
(#11519646)
> Intel's syntax is most common, not the AT&T one.
No, intel is an exception, not the norm. Amstrad, Atari, Commodore 64, Amiga, Sun (both Motorola and (Ultra)SPARC) all use "move src, dst", $ or 0x... only intel diverges from the norm.
You only see it everywhere nowadays thanks to the rise of GNU/Linux and other open source UNIXes.
If you translate mov into =, the syntax makes much more sense than AT&T.
I mean
mov dst, src
is similar to
dst = src