AT＆amp; T公司VS Intel语法和限制？ [英] AT&T vs Intel Syntax and Limitations?

问题描述

对于我来说，英特尔的语法更易于阅读。如果我通过组装林只在Intel语法疲惫地走集中，我会错过什么？有什么理由我想切换到AT＆amp; T公司（中能够读取别人的AT＆放大器之外，变速箱总成）？我的第一个线索是，GDB使用AT＆放大器;：T默认

To me, Intel syntax is much easier to read. If I go traipsing through assembly forest concentrating only on Intel syntax, will I miss anything? Is there any reason I would want to switch to AT&T (outside of being able to read others' AT&T assembly)? My first clue is that gdb uses AT&T by default.

如果该事项，我的重点只在任何关系组装和语法可能都对Linux / BSD和C语言。

If this matters, my focus is only on any relation assembly and syntax may have to Linux/BSD and the C language.

修改

感谢您Zifre，雅各布B和迈赫达德。我希望我可以选择所有的三个答案，因为它们都含有大量信息，所以我至少向上投你的所有。感谢您对Linux内核的GNU工具的休息，并再次保证它不会影响我的学习，从长远来看的信息。你们都是伟大的！

Thank you to Zifre, Jacob B and Mehrdad. I wish I could choose all three answers, because they all contained great information, so I at least up-voted you all. Thank you for the information about the Linux kernel, the rest of the GNU tools, and the reassurance that it won't affect my learning in the long run. You all are great!

推荐答案

实在是没有优势，一个比其他。我同意，虽然英特尔的语法多更易于阅读。请记住，据我所知，所有的GNU工具必须使用英特尔的语法也该选项。

There is really no advantage to one over the other. I agree though that Intel syntax is much easier to read. Keep in mind that, AFAIK, all GNU tools have the option to use Intel syntax also.

看起来你可以让GDB使用这个Intel语法：

It looks like you can make GDB use Intel syntax with this:

set disassembly-flavor intel

GCC可以做英特尔语法 -masm =英特尔。

这篇关于AT＆amp; T公司VS Intel语法和限制？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！