Re: Boot code rewritten for GAS

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 06:38:43 -0700


Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> > > > 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.

Well the dang instruction set is weird, but that's an unrelated
problem. However, I think this means you just disqualified yourself
from the discussion, since you wouldn't work on maintaining the assembly
portions anyhow.

> > 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.

Except it isn't consistent between modes. Really.

-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/