On 25/11/2022 07:39, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly
for more than ten years. One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86
if I need to write I piece of inline assembly then I have to do it
twice: one in AT&T syntax and one in Inte
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:03 PM LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
>
> 在 2022/11/25 17:32, Jakub Jelinek 写道:
> > So just use -masm=intel yourself and don't force it on others.
> >
> > Other people are familiar with AT&T syntax rather than Intel syntax,
> > in fact, as history shows, Intel syntax is a second c
在 2022/11/25 17:32, Jakub Jelinek 写道:
So just use -masm=intel yourself and don't force it on others.
Other people are familiar with AT&T syntax rather than Intel syntax,
in fact, as history shows, Intel syntax is a second class citizen that often
takes years to fix up for new instructions. The
> On 25 Nov 2022, at 09:11, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
>
> 在 2022/11/25 16:50, Marc Glisse 写道:
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
>>> I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly for
>>> more than ten years. One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 02:39:41PM +0800, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
> I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly for
> more than ten years. One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need
> to write I piece of inline assembly then I have to do it twice: one in AT&T
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:16, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
>
> 在 2022/11/25 16:50, Marc Glisse 写道:
> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2022, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
> >
> >> I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly
> >> for more than ten years.
> >> One annoying thing about GCC is that, fo
在 2022/11/25 16:50, Marc Glisse 写道:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly for more than ten years.
One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need to write I piece of inline assembly then I
have to do it twic
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly for
more than ten years. One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need
to write I piece of inline assembly then I have to do it twice: one in AT&T
syntax and one in Int
在 2022/11/25 15:48, Dave Blanchard 写道:
While I sympathize with the desire to get rid of crud (and I agree that AT&T
syntax is crud), as stated above it wouldn't really make a practical difference.
For distro maintainers it would likely break some/many older packages which assumed
the old defau
在 2022/11/25 15:37, Hi-Angel 写道:
Why? A default is merely a default. I don't really see why changing
that should help you specifically. A decision "which assembly syntax
to use" is one that makes a project like ones you're contributing to,
not GCC. If they decided to use AT&T syntax, they won't s
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:40, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
>> One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need to write I piece of
>> inline assembly then I
>> have to do it twice: one in AT&T syntax and one in Intel syntax.
> Why? A default is merely a default. I don't really see why changin
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:40, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
> One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need to write I piece of
> inline assembly then I
> have to do it twice: one in AT&T syntax and one in Intel syntax.
Why? A default is merely a default. I don't really see why changing
that
I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly for more than ten years. One
annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need to write I piece of inline assembly then I have
to do it twice: one in AT&T syntax and one in Intel syntax.
The AT&T syntax is an awkward for
13 matches
Mail list logo
