
Gentle Introduction to x86-64 Assembly - nickb
http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/assembly.html
======
cliff
Wish the examples were using intel syntax.

~~~
swolchok
I had a reply to this (see below), but reflection revealed that this is just a
flame-baiting comment. Intel/AT&T is apparently a long-running flamewar. See
e.g.
[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DPas0YoxygnkC%26pg%3DPA9%26lpg%3DPA9%26dq%3D%2522ida%2Bpro%2522%2Bintel%2Bsyntax%26source%3Dbl%26ots%3DQmWE1Cboiq%26sig%3D989vPlCpSXF9dYVsRhh7AoKFRps%26hl%3Den%26ei%3DosUjStODFIjOMqKzwa8J%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dbook_result%26ct%3Dresult%26resnum%3D1&ei=osUjStODFIjOMqKzwa8J&usg=AFQjCNG5ZZ39JZbRt_bfzq9dOMB69z8mXQ)
.

Originally wrote: Why? The OSS world uses AT&T syntax, because that's what gas
uses.

~~~
jcl
It is not flame bait. (BTW, I can't read your link due to Google's copyright
restrictions.)

gas uses AT&T syntax because it needs a format that applies to multiple
architectures. But the Intel format dominates Intel-specific compilers and, I
expect, the mindshare of Intel assembly coders. The OSS world is no exception;
the open-source Intel nasm and fasm assemblers use Intel format. Intel syntax
is so popular, in fact, that gas itself was modified to support it:
[http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.19/as/i386_002dSyntax....](http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.19/as/i386_002dSyntax.html#i386_002dSyntax)

