AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by rwmj on Sunday November 13, 2022 @04:38PM (#33587616)

It disambiguates labels from registers, assuming of course you allow labels to have register names. eg this is valid:

        mov rax,%rax                                                            
  rax:  .ascii "hello\0"

Stupid perhaps, but valid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by jck on Sunday November 13, 2022 @05:14PM (#33587941)

I wonder if it would have been more ergonomic to have the labels be % prefixed instead of registers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by int_19h on Sunday November 13, 2022 @08:37PM (#33589301)

The above-linked article specifically points out that registers are referenced much more often than labels.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by userbinator on Sunday November 13, 2022 @06:34PM (#33588526)

Probably an artifact of the original use of the assembler being to process compiler output, and causing variable names to appear.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by professoretc on Monday November 14, 2022 @05:59PM (#33602600)

Yep, the "nice" thing about AT&T is that, from a parsing perspective, you don't really need to know much about the target architecture to be able to determine what's an instruction vs. a register vs. a label, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]