Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 02 Aug 1999 02:39:21 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Boot code rewritten for GAS |
| |
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/
| |