Re: Boot code rewritten for GAS

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 02:39:21 -0700

Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) said:
> > Followup to: <199908011534.LAA07582@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>
> > By author: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>
> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> [...]
>
> > > Another reason: People who can write 16-bit x86 assembly are likely to
> > > be ex-DOS hackers with MASM and TASM experience. To them, gas syntax
> > > may be hard to use.
>
> > Indeed. NASM would be a better choice than either gas or as86.
>
> AT&T syntax is used in the rest of the kernel, and using plain gas means
> one tool less needed to build a kernel. Why would NASM be better then?
>

Because AT&T syntax is incredibly hard to read (especially for the
complex addressing modes), and even though gas finally supports other
than 32-bit flat modes, the support is at the very best half-hearted.

There aren't that many parts of the kernel containing sizable chunks of
assembly code.

-hpa

-- 
"The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue
Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with
and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions."
-- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/