Thanks. For now I will just concentrate on 1.8.
Lenard
Richard Goedeken wrote:
Yeah I was afraid of something like that. The constraints are the
killer. It's really not that big of deal to translate AT&T<-->Intel
inline code; I've done lots of it. I can do the translation for the
next rel
Yeah I was afraid of something like that. The constraints are the killer. It's
really not that big of deal to translate AT&T<-->Intel inline code; I've done
lots of it. I can do the translation for the next release.
Richard
Lenard Lindstrom wrote:
When you offered to write Intel versions of
When you offered to write Intel versions of the AT&T code I looked for a
way to automate some of the translation process. So I tried using the
-masm=intel and -S compiler options to translate the inline assembly
code and write it to an .s file. The inlined instructions were simply
copied. So i
Hey, that's great! Are you sure that this switch allows one to write inline asm
in Intel format? The man page says:
-masm=dialect
Output asm instructions using selected dialect. Supported choices are
intel or att (the default one). Darwin does not support intel.
I'll give a try some
hello,
for your info...
gcc supports intel syntax with a command line option.
-masm=intel
SDL uses macros for portable asm, I think.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Richard Goedeken
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lenard Lindstrom wrote:
> > Deciding how to handle assembly code in future Pygam
