Limitations of Intel Assembly Syntax Compared to AT&T

linux assembly x86 att bsd
oevna picture oevna · Jun 9, 2009 · Viewed 37.8k times · Source

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.

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

Answer

Zifre picture Zifre · Jun 9, 2009

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.

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

set disassembly-flavor intel

GCC can do Intel syntax with -masm=intel.

Related questions

Compile/run assembler in Linux?

I'm fairly new to Linux (Ubuntu 10.04) and a total novice to assembler. I was following some tutorials and I couldn't find anything specific to Linux. So, my question is, what is a good package to compile/run assembler and what …

Read More
Using gdb to single-step assembly code outside specified executable causes error "cannot find bounds of current function"

I'm outside gdb's target executable and I don't even have a stack that corresponds to that target. I want to single-step anyway, so that I can verify what's going on in my assembly code, because I'm not an expert at …

Read More
How do I disassemble raw 16-bit x86 machine code?

I'd like to disassemble the MBR (first 512 bytes) of a bootable x86 disk that I have. I have copied the MBR to a file using dd if=/dev/my-device of=mbr bs=512 count=1 Any suggestions for a Linux utility that …

Read More