I would like to hear what Rob or others have to say about the assembler syntax, but I actually like the syntax for the following reason. You only have to remember one syntax and not ten different ones. I would think, given that the structure of the compiler/loader is very non-traditional, it would be difficult to provide all the pseudo operations that the various native assemblers would require.
Best thing is not to write a lot of assembler code. :) > On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:44:21 -0000, Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to make a Hello World program in assembly without depending >> on libc. Here's what I have so far: >> >> DATA string+0(SB)/7, $"Hello\n\z" >> GLOBL string+0(SB), $7 >> >> TEXT _main+0(SB), 1, $0 >> >> // first arg; $1 = stdout >> MOVL $1, (SP) >> // second arg, address of string >> MOVL $string+0(SB), 4(SP) >> // third arg, $7 = length of string >> MOVL $7, 8(SP) >> // fourth argument, -1LL (vlong offset) >> MOVL $-1, 12(SP) >> MOVL $-1, 16(SP) >> >> // use pwrite syscall >> MOVL $51, AX >> INT $64 >> RET >> > > No two cents from me. Just posted this to say that AT&T syntax is > "sickly." I suppose Anant Narayanan is assembling these using 8a, and > given the "symptoms" (the syntax, that is) 8a must be using AT&T syntax. I > am wondering if there is an Intel syntax assembler for Plan 9 (something > akin to Netwide Assembler or yet better Flat Assembler). > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
