Timeline for What "unusual" syntax assembly languages are/were there?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23 at 15:05 | history | edited | Toby Speight | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Spelling fix
|
| S Nov 19, 2020 at 15:03 | history | suggested | Toby Speight | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Spelling and grammar
|
| Nov 19, 2020 at 14:37 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 19, 2020 at 15:03 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2020 at 19:27 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Format changed according to new rules
|
| Oct 31, 2020 at 19:16 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2020 at 9:29 | comment | added | Peter Cordes |
@JeremyP: I guess that would explain why GAS picked the (pre-existing I think) source-first AT&T syntax for x86, then. GAS for ARM, MIPS, and plenty of other ISAs is destination-first, using the only syntax that ever existed for those platforms. (\@another-dave: if you want incomprehensible, PowerPC does it for me. So much functionality packed into each instruction, multiple immediate fields for (very nice) insns like rlwinm, but hard-to-read choices for mnemonics, numbering bits IBM-style from the top of the register, and there's even an eieio mnemonic.)
|
|
| Apr 20, 2020 at 9:15 | comment | added | JeremyP | @PeterCordes The Gnu Assembler was written originally for VAX/11 which used a source first format. Also Stallman started writing Gnu on a 68000 system, again a source first format. It was also expected to be used mainly as a backend for gcc generated output, not for humans to write in. | |
| Apr 19, 2020 at 20:46 | history | edited | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 59 characters in body
|
| Apr 19, 2020 at 13:18 | comment | added | dave | re: gas syntax - as a non-x86-assembly programmer who occasionally needed to read it, I found the Intel syntax to be incoherent. I think it's a matter of what you're used to. | |
| Apr 19, 2020 at 2:24 | comment | added | Peter Cordes |
@phuclv: GAS was just being compatible with an existing Unix assembler for some existing 386 Unix at the time. That made sense at the time. It's really unfortunate that whoever those clowns were picked some craptastic syntax different from the Intel manuals, influenced by PDP11. What was the original reason for the design of AT&T assembly syntax? (And they even got the operands reversed vs. the normal AT&T convention for some x87 non-commutative instructions.) So blame them, not GNU; At least most tools can use .intel_syntax noprefix these days
|
|
| Apr 18, 2020 at 16:57 | comment | added | phuclv | The gas syntax is also unusual and much less readable to me (esp. the memory dereference syntax). They made things even far worse by making everything harder to look up in the CPU manual | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 14:54 | history | answered | Raffzahn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |