Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "as_16".
2006 Apr 29
2
[LLVMdev] Intel vs. AT&T Assembly.
Hi,
I notice `lli -print-machineinstrs -x86-asm-syntax=(att|intel)' both
prefix registers with `%'. Is this right? I thought AT&T did this and
Intel didn't. The GNU gas manual concurs.
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/manual/gas-2.9.1/html_chapter/as_16.html
Cheers,
Ralph.
2006 Apr 29
0
[LLVMdev] Intel vs. AT&T Assembly.
...gt;
> I notice `lli -print-machineinstrs -x86-asm-syntax=(att|intel)' both
> prefix registers with `%'. Is this right? I thought AT&T did this and
> Intel didn't. The GNU gas manual concurs.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/manual/gas-2.9.1/html_chapter/as_16.html
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Ralph.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
>
>
2006 May 01
2
[LLVMdev] Intel vs. AT&T Assembly.
...you can't define a function named
> 'dword'), so we switched to using AT&T syntax.
Ah, OK. The current gas manual says Intel register operands are
undelimeted, i.e. no `%'. Perhaps they've changed.
http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/manual/gas-2.9.1/html_chapter/as_16.html#IDX585
> Intel syntax mode was retained because it's nicer to read :), and
> because it may be useful in the future. As Jeff says, patches are
> welcome to make it do something useful, e.g. be assemblable with MASM
> or NASM.
NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU...
2006 May 01
0
[LLVMdev] Intel vs. AT&T Assembly.
...ction named
>> 'dword'), so we switched to using AT&T syntax.
>
> Ah, OK. The current gas manual says Intel register operands are
> undelimeted, i.e. no `%'. Perhaps they've changed.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/manual/gas-2.9.1/html_chapter/as_16.html#IDX585
Though it really doesn't matter, IIRC, this was to work around bugs in
GAS. In particular (again, as I recall, could be wrong), GAS accepted
registers either with or without % prefixes. If you used % prefixes, it
avoided some class of bug that I don't remember any longer....
2006 Apr 29
2
[LLVMdev] Intel vs. AT&T Assembly.
...li -print-machineinstrs -x86-asm-syntax=(att|intel)' both
> > prefix registers with `%'. Is this right? I thought AT&T did this
> > and Intel didn't. The GNU gas manual concurs.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/manual/gas-2.9.1/html_chapter/as_16.html
>
> The Intel version is just a clone of the AT&T version at this time.
> No one has yet taken the time to make it produce actual Intel syntax.
It's a long way towards it:
# AT&T. # Intel.
.text .text...
2006 May 01
0
[LLVMdev] Intel vs. AT&T Assembly.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> We know. Someone offered to do the Intel version, but did little more than a
> huge cut and paste of the AT&T version and then lost interest. No one else
> has had the time or inclination to finish the (barely begun) job. Patches
> accepted :)
Actually, that's not true. The LLVM X86 backend started out emitting
intel mode for
2006 Apr 29
4
[LLVMdev] Intel vs. AT&T Assembly.
We know. Someone offered to do the Intel version, but did little more
than a huge cut and paste of the AT&T version and then lost interest.
No one else has had the time or inclination to finish the (barely begun)
job. Patches accepted :)
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> It's a long way towards it:
>>
>> # AT&T. # Intel.