News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax. Parent comment

Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by throwawaylinux on Sunday November 13, 2022 @06:08PM (#33588342)
Not really. Intel vs AT&T syntax is about how to generate machine code from mnemonics.

Cooperation with the linker comes with other directives and options. gas has tight cooperation with GNU ld via directives, not instruction syntax. It can actually be set to accept either AT&T or Intel syntax, without losing any support for other features.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by JonChesterfield on Monday November 14, 2022 @04:44AM (#33591891)
The case that comes to mind was emitting a (correct) relocation for one mode and raising an error for the other. That was more likely to be llvm-mc than gas though, so results from on assembler may not apply to all assemblers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by throwawaylinux on Monday November 14, 2022 @06:08AM (#33592480)
Emitting a relocation with .reloc directive? Definitely sounds like an llvm-as bug.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax by JonChesterfield on Monday November 14, 2022 @08:12AM (#33593444)
No, it was an arithmetic expression related to labels. And yes I'd agree that it working in... I want to say intel and not at&t (might be the other way around) is a bug/missing feature. Didn't bother fixing or reporting it at the time though.
[ Parent | on HN ]