You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Indeed there are some issues with the Intel syntax e.g. one may want to use SP as the name of a function or static variable which would confuse the assembler, but for code that is to be read by humans, there is really no reason to prefer the awkward AT&T syntax.
Other than official Intel and AMD documentation,
The great work by Ed Jorgensen uses Intel syntax with YASM: http://www.egr.unlv.edu/~ed/assembly64.pdf
We also note this course is for Ubuntu but they don't use the GNU assembler.
The FreeBSD handbook uses Intel syntax with NASM: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/developers-handbook/x86/
This is another non-Windows platform. All assemblers that targe x86 and x86-64, except the GNU assembler, use Intel syntax: nasm, yasm, etc.
Indeed there are some issues with the Intel syntax e.g. one may want to use
SP
as the name of a function or static variable which would confuse the assembler, but for code that is to be read by humans, there is really no reason to prefer the awkward AT&T syntax.Other than official Intel and AMD documentation,
We also note this course is for Ubuntu but they don't use the GNU assembler.
This is another non-Windows platform. All assemblers that targe x86 and x86-64, except the GNU assembler, use Intel syntax: nasm, yasm, etc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: