Conversation

Jarkko Sakkinen

Edited 8 months ago
so yasm vs. nasm? :-) confusing, i was aware only of latter and that's what i've been using in the past (not very recently, mostly just gas).
1
0
0
"Yasm currently supports the x86 and AMD64 instruction sets, accepts NASM and GAS assembler syntaxes"

I only know Intel and AT&T syntax, never heard of NASM and GAS syntax. I learned and enjoyed first Intel syntax with Borland Turbo Assembler when still using MS-DOS, and in adult age I have had to suffer from horrible AT&T syntax that kernel uses (and more widely many of the core'esque open source projects). I still have hard times with AT&T crap...
1
0
0

Jarkko Sakkinen

Edited 8 months ago
i stick to nasm because of incorrect terminology and no use for assembler as dso i guess. i would get multiarch support as a reason for rewrite but dso is not very interesting feature.
0
0
0