Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 02 Aug 1999 06:38:43 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Boot code rewritten for GAS |
| |
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/
| |