在 2023-03-22 21:07, Jacek Caban 写道:
That's the motivation for this? I can see a point in supporting both syntaxes in headers (which may be included by users with various compiler options), but for crt, why isn't supporting a single syntax understood by all supported compilers enough?
Yes that is the only motivation.
Why? Because AT&T is unofficial, foreign, and awkward.
1. No Intel or AMD doc ever speaks this way. This is already enough for
being thrown into the dustbin of history.
2. It was designed for PDP originally, and got widespread just because
Plan 9 dogs couldn't stop barking. Oh please take a look at the Go
assembler, and what they've done to ARM, brilliant.
3. And, we want `xmm0 = xmm1 - xmm2` and `vsubpd xmm0, xmm1, xmm2`, not
the backward nonsense `vsubpd %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm0`; same for `cmp`.
4. And we want `mov eax, [rsi + rbx * 8 + 12]`, not
`movl 12(%rsi, %rbx, 8), %eax`.
Intel syntax also copes better with other tools - Microsoft compilers, NASM, IDA, x64dbg, countless
assembler and disassemblers - none of them produce or accept nonstandard AT&T syntax in any way.
There have been enough talks about that [1]; I hope I would not have to repeat myself [2].
[1] https://outerproduct.net/2021-02-13_att-asm.html [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-November/240103.html -- Best regards, LIU Hao
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
