AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
cs.mcgill.ca
AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
1–10 of 112 posts
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#2Hmm. "AT&T"? I thought it at least came from DEC via the PDP-11,7 assembler.
And I'm guessing Intel didn't invent doing it backwards in their own either.
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#3AT&T vs. Intel syntax has caused many arguments in some of my circles. AT&T is an atrocity and if you disagree... you're wrong. :)
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#4In a dumb idea to depend only on GAS, before it had good support for Intel syntax, I ported some code from Intel syntax into AT&T many moons ago, quite dumb idea, if i was doing it today I would have listed nasm or yasm as a requirement and be done with it.
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#5Hmm. "AT&T"? I thought it at least came from DEC via the PDP-11,7 assembler. And I'm guessing Intel didn't invent doing it backwards in their own either.
Wikipedia confirms it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language#Syntax
"The AT&T syntax is nearly universal to all other architectures with the same mov order; it was originally a syntax for PDP-11 assembly. The Intel syntax is specific to the x86 architecture, and is the one used in the x86 platform's documentation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_(Unix)
"As of November 1971, an assembler invoked as as was available for Unix. Implemented by Bell Labs staff, it was based upon the Digital Equipment Corporation's PAL-11R assembler."
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#6AT&T vs. Intel syntax has caused many arguments in some of my circles. AT&T is an atrocity and if you disagree... you're wrong. :)
op src dest
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#7AT&T vs. Intel syntax has caused many arguments in some of my circles. AT&T is an atrocity and if you disagree... you're wrong. :)
[deleted]
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#8AT&T vs. Intel syntax has caused many arguments in some of my circles. AT&T is an atrocity and if you disagree... you're wrong. :)
They are using a classic dollar sign for assignment, so clearly at&t is better.
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#9Hmm. "AT&T"? I thought it at least came from DEC via the PDP-11,7 assembler. And I'm guessing Intel didn't invent doing it backwards in their own either.
AT&T as in Bell Labs in the work that would become Unix.
Re: AT&T Syntax versus Intel Syntax (2001)
#10AT&T vs. Intel syntax has caused many arguments in some of my circles. AT&T is an atrocity and if you disagree... you're wrong. :)
[deleted]