Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.c > #167552

Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler

From Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler
Date 2022-09-08 19:23 +0100
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <tfdbu8$1va3$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <cecefea6-c480-4bd2-a102-94576974289en@googlegroups.com> <tfbaqq$tl9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <76dca35b-fe93-46ee-99b6-ac1cefa72098n@googlegroups.com> <tfd2em$1als$1@gioia.aioe.org> <UYoSK.101322$6gz7.60364@fx37.iad>

Show all headers | View raw


On 08/09/2022 17:43, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 08/09/2022 13:20, Thiago Adams wrote:
> 
>> There are syntax differences between different assemblers, but they're
>> not great. (Only gcc's 'gas' or 'AT&T' format is very different, but
>> even that has an option to accept the more standard Intel-style format.)
> 
> Define standard, in this context.  The AT&T syntax preceeded the intel
> syntax (as it was originally designed for the PDP-11 where source
> operands always preceeded destination operands) by several years.
> Not to mention that the majority of mainframe assembler syntaxes
> also had destination operands following source operands, even those
> without general purpose registers.
> 
> The AT&T syntax is far more concise and readable without all the
> useless annotations (e.g. DWORD everywhere).
> 
> YMMV and opinions differ.
> 

The context was x64 and x86, which were successors to 8086 which was a 
development of 8080, all Intel products. AFAIK those have always used a 
destination operand on the left in their assemblers.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Cake -  C23 to C99 transpiler Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 18:44 -0700
  Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@example.invalid> - 2022-09-06 02:48 -0400
    Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-09-06 10:08 -0700
      Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-07 12:27 +0100
        Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-09-07 05:45 -0700
          Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-09-07 15:35 +0100
            Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-09-07 16:38 +0100
              Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-09-07 17:04 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2022-09-07 19:14 +0300
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-09-07 17:31 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-09-07 17:40 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-09-07 17:49 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-09-07 19:27 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-09-07 20:02 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-09-07 21:03 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-09-07 13:52 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-09-14 07:14 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-09-14 10:59 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-09-15 23:46 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-09-07 20:17 +0200
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-09-07 19:58 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-09-07 13:26 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-09-07 23:42 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-09-14 06:45 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-09-14 06:40 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-09-07 10:28 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-09-07 20:05 +0200
            Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-09-07 15:28 -0700
              Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-09-08 00:51 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-09-08 05:20 -0700
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-09-08 16:41 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-09-08 16:43 +0000
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-09-08 19:23 +0100
                Re: Cake - C23 to C99 transpiler Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-09-08 09:59 -0700

csiph-web