AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by pjmlp on Sunday November 13, 2022 @01:38PM (#33585963)

In a dumb idea to depend only on GAS, before it had good support for Intel syntax, I ported some code from Intel syntax into AT&T many moons ago, quite dumb idea, if i was doing it today I would have listed nasm or yasm as a requirement and be done with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by Taniwha on Sunday November 13, 2022 @07:07PM (#33588727)

I'm pretty sure all this predates the existence of gas

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by bbanyc on Monday November 14, 2022 @12:14AM (#33590388)

Only slightly. System V/386 was 1987, first release of GAS was 1989 (and GCC got 386 support in 1988)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by Taniwha on Monday November 14, 2022 @07:56PM (#33603750)

Intel format was pre-unix (probably 8080) ... and AT&T of course was from the late 70s, originally from PDPs

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by pjmlp on Monday November 14, 2022 @01:45AM (#33590884)

I am pretty sure of its status about 25 years ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]