AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by ack_complete on Sunday November 13, 2022 @05:06PM (#33587877)

Practically, 68k is far more usable in AT&T syntax than x86. When I used to do PalmPilot development, you could basically write standard 68k asm with just some extra %s sprinkled before registers and as would be fine with it. The x86 AT&T syntax is far more alien compared to the syntax in the official manuals, with arguments backward and nonstandard instruction names like addl and movabsq.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by kccqzy on Sunday November 13, 2022 @08:09PM (#33589135)

I never understood the need for names for movabsq. The top comment on this HN discussion is about how this is all a historical quirk, people wanting to get a job done quick and dirty. But movabsq is a new instruction introduced only with x86-64 (then known as AMD64). With the 64-bit transition why didn't they take the opportunity to clean up and reorganize this mess?

[ Parent | on HN ]