search for: nasmdoc0

...ff 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 LGPL and runs on multiple OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html You went onto write: > > Let's see. Ralph correctly points out that LLVM isn't producing > > anything like Intel syntax. ... "Oh, no I didn't". :-) It was me that was saying llc's att and intel are already very different but both happen to have `%...

...Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > >> >> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on multiple >> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. >> >> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html > > That's fine with me. The instructions are in true intel mode now, the > hard part will be to get the pseudo ops to match what the assembler > expects. > > -Chris We had this discussion last year. We need to support the assembler that is guaranteed to be present...

...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 LGPL and runs on multiple > OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. > > http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html That's fine with me. The instructions are in true intel mode now, the hard part will be to get the pseudo ops to match what the assembler expects. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

...r wrote: >> On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >>> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on multiple >>> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. >>> >>> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html >> >> That's fine with me. The instructions are in true intel mode now, the hard >> part will be to get the pseudo ops to match what the assembler expects. >> >> -Chris > > We had this discussion last year. We need to support the assembler that is...

...006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >>>> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on >>>> multiple >>>> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. >>>> >>>> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html >>> >>> That's fine with me. The instructions are in true intel mode now, >>> the hard part will be to get the pseudo ops to match what the >>> assembler expects. >>> >>> -Chris >> >> We had this discussion last year. We...

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

...;> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on >>>>> multiple >>>>> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages >>>>> work. >>>>> >>>>> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html >>>> >>>> That's fine with me. The instructions are in true intel mode now, >>>> the hard part will be to get the pseudo ops to match what the >>>> assembler expects. >>>> >>>> -Chris >>> >>> We ha...

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.