Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 05 Sep 1998 10:55:31 -0500
From:      Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org>
To:        chris/reman <z2172268@student.unsw.edu.au>
Cc:        Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu>, Rodrigo Ormonde <ormonde@aker.com.br>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Assembler with FreeBSD 
Message-ID:  <199809051555.KAA26672@detlev.UUCP>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 05 Sep 1998 19:43:00 %2B1000." <35F107A4.F617A64E@student.unsw.edu.au> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>> You don't really want to use gas, because it was never made for human
>>>> use, just as a back end for gcc, and it's reactions to errors stink.
>>> No way! GAS fixed the arse-about-face assembler that intel created!!
>>> They made the assembler language user-drool-friendly!
>> The syntax is fine.  It's error handling, however, sucks.
> I think the AT&T syntax used in gas really sux, considering that
> most x86 assemblers (MASM, TASM, A86, NASM) all use standard Intel
> syntax I don't see why I should bother trying to learn a new way of
> expressing an already hard to use language, it's like someone
> decided to release a version of gcc with a ; at the start of
> statements, and the logic was x + y = z, just because thats how we
> normally write it andn not the arse-around way that ansi c uses.

The syntax was designed to be Unix-based.  Remember that gas uses the
standard Unix assembler syntax, most as-based tools are designed to
emit Unix syntax, etc.  It would be silly for as to make an exception
in Intel's case.

Recall that the assemblers you named are all DOS assemblers, with the
exception of NASM, which was designed to emulate one.  This isn't
lossage that the Unix community created.  It's something that Intel
did and we chose to ignore because of its drain bramage.

(I really can't blame Intel that much.  The 8086 was released in 1979,
before there was a lot of standardization in assemblers anyway.  I
can't be sure, but it could have happened starting with the 4004
even.)

Best,
joelh

-- 
Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan
   Fourth law of programming:
   Anything that can go wrong wi
sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809051555.KAA26672>