Re: A patch for linux 2.1.127

[Ken Raeburn <raeburn at cygnus dot com>]

Check out:
	http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq135.html#Syntax
for differences in assembly syntax and tutorial references, and
	http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq136.html#Converting ASM
for some scripts and stuff for converting syntaxes, and references for
NASM and JAS.

Contributions of code to support Intel syntax directly would be
welcome.  (Of course it has to be well-written, as much as that's
possible in the gas code base, assigned to the FSF, etc., etc.)  Or
you may be able to pay someone already familiar with both syntaxes to
do the work.  But please don't spew complaints and insults just
because no one has volunteered the time already.

There are very strong reasons gas supports the AT&T syntax, namely its
primary use as a back end to gcc and the predominance of that syntax
on UNIX platforms.  If you think that the change in syntax was a bad
move, you could complain to AT&T, but it's years too late.

There are obviously reasons why it would be nice to support Intel
syntax too.  But, equally obviously, those reasons haven't been
important enough for anyone else to do yet.  If it's important for
you, then you're volunteered. :-)

And if you don't at least consider it, then apparently it's not that
important to you either.  (I mean, important for *gas* to support
Intel syntax.  Clearly finding *something* that will support it is
important to you, and whether that thing needs to be gas is an
entirely separate question.)  Which would be fine too.  Maybe someone
else will do it someday.  Maybe not.  Free software is like that.

Ken