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.
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.