Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax
by AnimalMuppet on Sunday November 13, 2022 @06:30PM
(#33588497)
Wow, is your bias showing. "Against the wishes of everyone"? How about the wishes of those who wanted an x86 assembler before Intel got around to releasing theirs? And who wanted to be able to not have to switch their brains into a backward syntax when working on an x86?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Probably "against the wishes of assembly language programmers who were familiar with microprocessors like the 8080 and Z-80 - and those who would have preferred to standardize on the official intel syntax rather than deal with two different and incompatible assembly language syntaxes."
Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax
by AnimalMuppet on Sunday November 13, 2022 @10:18PM
(#33589883)
So, reading the comments here I got the impression that the 8086/8088 order was backwards from everything else before it. Did the 8080 and Z-80 have the same order as the 8086?
But even then, you have worlds converging. The 8086 was (barely) capable of running Unix, whereas the Z-80 definitely was not. Was the 8086 a part of the PDP-11 minicomputer world, or was it part of the 8080/Z-80 world? Well, it was both. Complaining that one world produced an assembler before the other did is... a bit exclusivist. Also whiny.
Re:AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax
by userbinator on Sunday November 13, 2022 @11:36PM
(#33590231)
The 8086 was (barely) capable of running Unix, whereas the Z-80 definitely was not.
https://github.com/chettrick/uzics
You're wrong ;-)
Neither the 8086 nor the Z80 have virtual memory. The x86 has a larger instruction set and address space (1MB) but as it turns out, early Unix kernels didn't need that much RAM either.