Intel or AT&T assembly syntax?

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

Do you prefer AT&T Syntax or Intel Syntax for assembly?

AT&T
5
24%
Intel
10
48%
Otter/Duck
5
24%
I don't understand what you are saying
1
5%
 
Total votes: 21

User avatar
Earlz
Gets Obvious Implications
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:38 am UTC
Location: USA
Contact:

Intel or AT&T assembly syntax?

Postby Earlz » Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:34 pm UTC

Pretty simple question.... Why do you prefer this syntax. Anything else we need to know?

I prefer Intel syntax because it's used in the manuals and it is much more commonly used(by humans) and the destination,source syntax just makes sense to me.. It's basically as if your saying destination=source like you would in C..
My new blag(WIP, so yes it's still ugly..)
DEFIANCE!
Image
This is microtext. Zooming in digitally makes it worse. Get a magnifying glass.. works only on LCD

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: Intel or AT&T assembly syntax?

Postby lulzfish » Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:58 pm UTC

examples plz?

User avatar
Area Man
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:08 pm UTC
Location: Local

Re: Intel or AT&T assembly syntax?

Postby Area Man » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:14 pm UTC

Intel, since all my asm play was using NASM.
Bisquick boxes are a dead medium.

stephentyrone
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Intel or AT&T assembly syntax?

Postby stephentyrone » Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:00 pm UTC

Perversely, I prefer Intel-style syntax on non-Intel archs and AT&T syntax when writing for Intel. Go figure.

Mostly just habit, but I dislike the Intel syntax with destructive operations.
GENERATION -16 + 31i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

User avatar
enk
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:20 am UTC
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Intel or AT&T assembly syntax?

Postby enk » Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:48 pm UTC

Earlz wrote:I prefer Intel syntax because [...] the destination,source syntax just makes sense to me.. It's basically as if your saying destination=source like you would in C..


I prefer AT&T myself simply because I learned GNU Assembly, but to rationalize I guess having the dest last is logical, just like mv in the shell (unix$ mv src dst).
phlip wrote:Ha HA! Recycled emacs jokes.

Rysto
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: Intel or AT&T assembly syntax?

Postby Rysto » Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:56 pm UTC

This has been done.

Two9A
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:22 pm UTC
Location: The smogbound wastes of northern England
Contact:

Re: Intel or AT&T assembly syntax?

Postby Two9A » Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:20 pm UTC

Sure it's been done before, and countless times outside of these doors, but it's as valid an excuse for drumming up new conflict as any.

For what it's worth, I simply don't see the point of AT&T syntax; Intel all the way. Seeing as how Intel made the chips in question, it only makes sense.
The Unofficial "Making xkcd Slightly Worse" Archive [Incomplete]: xkcdsw.com
Articles that fall out of my head about once a month: imrannazar.com


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests