[LLVMdev] Intel vs. AT&T Assembly.
sabre at nondot.org
Mon May 1 10:19:55 PDT 2006
On Mon, 1 May 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> Chris 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.
>> 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.
> We had this discussion last year. We need to support the assembler that is
> guaranteed to be present as part of a tool chain, not every assembler in
> existence. On Unix, where we build with gcc, that is gas. On Windows, that
> is either again gcc or Visual Studio. Visual Studio also comes with an
> assembler, ml.exe, and users of Visual Studio will not appreciate being
> forced to download a different assembler. I doubt anyone else would either.
> Gas is perfectly happy assembling AT&T syntax,
I agree with the above :)
> so the only assembler that
> Intel syntax mode needs to support is Mircosoft's ml.exe.
I agree that "the most useful assembler for intel syntax mode to support
is microsoft's ml.exe", but I don't think it's true that it is the only
one we can/should support. If there is little cost to adding NASM
support (i.e. the code isn't horrible) and if someone produces a patch, we
would be welcome it.
That said, support for ml.exe certainly sounds more *useful*. :)
More information about the llvm-dev