Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

IMHO the most confusing part is that AT&T/GAS syntax inverts the comparisons, which are otherwise natural in Intel syntax:

    cmp eax, ebx   ; eax ? ebx
    jg foo         ; jump if eax > ebx

View on HN

Also the % before register names is completely unnecessary, it just another extra character to type.

It disambiguates labels from registers, assuming of course you allow labels to have register names. eg this is valid:

        mov rax,%rax                                                            
  rax:  .ascii "hello\0"

Stupid perhaps, but valid.

I wonder if it would have been more ergonomic to have the labels be % prefixed instead of registers.

The above-linked article specifically points out that registers are referenced much more often than labels.

Probably an artifact of the original use of the assembler being to process compiler output, and causing variable names to appear.

One of the x86 assemblers I remember trying out in the late 80s had a slight variant of Intel syntax in that everything that wasn't a reserved word/mnemonic was automatically assumed to be a label.

Yep, the "nice" thing about AT&T is that, from a parsing perspective, you don't really need to know much about the target architecture to be able to determine what's an instruction vs. a register vs. a label, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com