Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

use intel for inline assembly instead of AT&T #242

Closed
andrewrk opened this issue Feb 4, 2017 · 1 comment
Closed

use intel for inline assembly instead of AT&T #242

andrewrk opened this issue Feb 4, 2017 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement Solving this issue will likely involve adding new logic or components to the codebase.
Milestone
0.1.0

Comments

@andrewrk
Copy link
Member

andrewrk commented Feb 4, 2017

  • There appears to be a preference among users to use Intel assembly syntax
  • Typically the CPU manual proposes an assembly syntax that assemblers follow. Intel/AT&T is the only case where the manual got ignored and a different assembly syntax was created. Intel syntax is the one proposed in the manual.
  • AT&T is meant to be more of a machine-parsable IR, and Intel is meant to be more like human readable source. Inline assembly in Zig is human-readable source.
@andrewrk andrewrk added the enhancement Solving this issue will likely involve adding new logic or components to the codebase. label Feb 4, 2017
@andrewrk andrewrk added this to the 0.1.0 milestone Feb 4, 2017
@andrewrk
Copy link
Member Author

andrewrk commented Sep 9, 2018

See #215 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement Solving this issue will likely involve adding new logic or components to the codebase.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.1.0
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@andrewrk