>> 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
the assembler is really just a front-end to the loader, and nothing to do with `at&t syntax'. there are some odd aspects to thompson syntax as it is (data loading for instance, and the <>) but generally i agree with brantley. some weeks i'm working with several processors, even several a day, and the `native' (in what sense? does the processor implement them?) assemblers typically differ in operand order, basic mnemonics (l/st vs mov), and other conventions, whereas the ?a family is uniformly data flow, and tends to use similar instructions for similar things. i find it much easier moving from platform to platform with it.
