Subj : C is the most efficient p To : Digital Man From : Boraxman Date : Wed Dec 29 2021 15:30:00 -=> Digital Man wrote to Boraxman <=- DM> @MSGID: <61C89E1F.5377.dove-prg@vert.synchro.net> DM> @REPLY: <61C84490.2753.dove-prg@bbs.mozysswamp.org> DM> Re: C is the most efficient p DM> By: Boraxman to Nightfox on DM> Sun Dec 26 2021 09:27 pm > -=> Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=- > > Ni> @MSGID: <61C6BCF6.3338.dove_dove-prg@digitaldistortionbbs.com> > Ni> @REPLY: <61C649CF.2751.dove-prg@bbs.mozysswamp.org> > Ni> Re: C is the most efficient p > Ni> By: Boraxman to Nightfox on > Ni> Sat Dec 25 2021 09:12 am > > Ni>> But still, assembler for each processor is defined by the operations > Ni>> that the processor understands, and there is a specific syntax for > Ni>> each operation. > > Bo> Have you ever used AT&T syntax? > > Ni> I haven't. > > It's an alternative syntax for assembler, used by GAS and I guess other > assemblers for Unix too. > > An example from a program I wrote is below > > movl %eax, BRK_Start > movl %eax, BRK_End > movl (%esp), %ecx > cmp $1, %ecx > je clifail > cmp $3, %ecx > jg clifail > movl 8(%esp), %ebx > jl success > movb (%ebx), %al > > > As you can see, the syntax is familiar, but different. Source and > destination are the other way around for MOV commands, the offset notation > is different, immediate values are prefixed with a $. DM> Motorola 68K assemblers used the "move source, destination" as well DM> (opposite of Intel/x86 assemblers). DM> Basically, there's no real "standard" when it comes to assembly DM> languages. -- Exactly, which is why I don't consider a language, because there isn't actually a standard to construct a language. Each author of an assembler can make up whatever they like. FASM is a language. MASM is a language, AT&T Intel is a language, NASM is a language, etc etc .... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader! --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52 þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org .