Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Boot code rewritten for GAS | Date | Sun, 01 Aug 1999 22:19:25 -0400 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
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? -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- 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/
| |