[...]
> > > 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.
To me the intel syntax is completely unreadable. But then again I grew up
on 6502 (Apple ][+), and later dabbled in DEC-10, VAX-11 (BSD) and a few
others, then worked a bit with 8086 under DOS. Never got to wrap my brain
around intel's syntax, even though it is the one I've used most.
> There aren't that many parts of the kernel containing sizable chunks of
> assembly code.
So the pain is limited, and restricted to a part of the kernel that rarely
changes... better keep it consistent in that case. IMVHO.
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- 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/