x86 assembler syntax

x86 assembler syntax

[Rick C. Hodgin]

All,

Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++?  And if not,
why not?  It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.

- Rick C. Hodgin

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Tim Prince]

On 8/8/2010 10:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> All,
>
> Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++?  And if not,
> why not?  It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
>
> - Rick C. Hodgin
>
>
>    
I don't know how you get along without a search engine.  What about
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Assembly-HOWTO/gas.html ?

-- 
Tim Prince

Re: [Bulk] Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Tim,

Nice.  It reads: "3.2.3. Intel syntax - Good news are that starting from
binutils 2.10 release, GAS supports Intel syntax too. It can be
triggered with .intel_syntax directive. Unfortunately this mode is not
documented (yet?) in the official binutils manual, so if you want to use
it, try to examine http://www.lxhp.in-berlin.de/lhpas86.html, which is
an extract from AMD 64bit port of binutils 2.11."

I tried a sample with asm(".intel_syntax; int 3") and it seemed to
compile/assemble that line correctly, instead of asm("int $0x3").  But
my other AT&T syntax commands all failed after that.  So, this directive
must be a global setting, and not an instance-by-instance setting.

Thanks for the search, Tim. :-)

- Rick

On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 23:37 -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
> On 8/8/2010 10:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++?  And if not,
> > why not?  It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
> >
> > - Rick C. Hodgin
> >
> >
> >    
> I don't know how you get along without a search engine.  What about
> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Assembly-HOWTO/gas.html ?
> 

Re: [Bulk] Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 9 August 2010 08:08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Nice.  It reads: "3.2.3. Intel syntax - Good news are that starting from
> binutils 2.10 release, GAS supports Intel syntax too. It can be
> triggered with .intel_syntax directive. Unfortunately this mode is not
> documented (yet?) in the official binutils manual, so if you want to use
> it, try to examine http://www.lxhp.in-berlin.de/lhpas86.html, which is
> an extract from AMD 64bit port of binutils 2.11."

2.11 is quite old now

http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.20/as/i386_002dDependent.html

> I tried a sample with asm(".intel_syntax; int 3") and it seemed to
> compile/assemble that line correctly, instead of asm("int $0x3").  But
> my other AT&T syntax commands all failed after that.  So, this directive
> must be a global setting, and not an instance-by-instance setting.

http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.20/as/i386_002dSyntax.html

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Ian Lance Taylor]

"Rick C. Hodgin" <foxmuldrster@yahoo.com> writes:

> Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++?  And if not,
> why not?  It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.

-masm=intel

This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
list.

Ian

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Rick C. Hodgin]

> "Rick C. Hodgin" <foxmuldrster@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++?  And if not,
> > why not?  It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
> -masm=intel
> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
> list. -Ian Lance Taylor

My apologies to everyone.  I did not know such a list existed.

- Rick C. Hodgin

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Gerald Pfeifer]

Hi Rick (and others),

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
>> list. -Ian Lance Taylor
> My apologies to everyone.  I did not know such a list existed.

all of our web pages have a footer which refers to gcc-help, but 
apparently this pointer is not working sufficiently well.

This is _not_ to blame anyone, rather I'd like to see whether/how
I can improve the situation.  Any suggestions?

Gerald

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[James Dennett]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> Hi Rick (and others),
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
>>> list. -Ian Lance Taylor
>> My apologies to everyone.  I did not know such a list existed.
>
> all of our web pages have a footer which refers to gcc-help, but
> apparently this pointer is not working sufficiently well.
>
> This is _not_ to blame anyone, rather I'd like to see whether/how
> I can improve the situation.  Any suggestions?

Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
gcc-dev@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
right list)?

Maybe it's too late for that, but it's unfortunate that the primary
mailing list name is taken for the implementors, not the users.

-- James

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Ian Lance Taylor]

James Dennett <james.dennett@gmail.com> writes:

> Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
> gcc-dev@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
> right list)?

I tend to agree that we should change the name of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list.

Ian

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Richard Kenner]

> > Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
> > gcc-dev@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
> > right list)?
> 
> I tend to agree that we should change the name of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> mailing list.

I don't think it'll help.  "gcc-dev: that's the list for people developing
software WITH gcc, right?"  ;-)

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[David Edelsohn]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> James Dennett <james.dennett@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
>> gcc-dev@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
>> right list)?
>
> I tend to agree that we should change the name of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> mailing list.

Maybe instead of *changing* the name, we should *add*
gcc-dev@gcc.gnu.org and re-purpose gcc@gcc.gnu.org.  Depending on how
we changed the existing mailinglist, it could create a lot of
unnecessary confusion or broken links (not that you suggested changing
the URL of the mailinglist archives).

- David

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Basile Starynkevitch]

On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:13 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> > James Dennett <james.dennett@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
> >> gcc-dev@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
> >> right list)?
> >
> > I tend to agree that we should change the name of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > mailing list.
> 
> Maybe instead of *changing* the name, we should *add*
> gcc-dev@gcc.gnu.org and re-purpose gcc@gcc.gnu.org.  


I would prefer having gcc-dev@gcc.gnu.org (which takes the role of
current gcc@gcc.gnu.org) and keeping the existing gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org

But if we re-purpose gcc@gcc.gnu.org we'll get there a lot of messages
asking for help. My feeling is that it is a much too used list to be
re-assigned.

Cheers.
-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***

Re: x86 assembler syntax

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> For what it's worth. One of the pages I went to had the email address as 
> gcc@gnu.org, not even gcc@gcc.gnu.org. Somebody corrected me on that 
> already too. :-)

Both addresses -- gcc@gcc.gnu.org and gcc@gnu.org -- actually work,
interchangably.  I did change our web page to only use the former
on Sunday to simplify things, cf. the bottom of http://gcc.gnu.org/ .

Thanks for your feedback!

Gerald