[Bug target/109257] `-masm=intel` generates weird syntax for indirect jumps

[jbeulich at suse dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257

--- Comment #4 from jbeulich at suse dot com ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #3)
> (In reply to jbeulich from comment #2)
> > Sure, but there's no reason for gas to not accept what MASM would. You also
> > don't really make clear why you think this is an issue, and hence why it
> > should be changed in gcc.
> 
> Why not? The syntax is invalid because Intel software developer manual has
> no reference to such construction. The fact that MASM would accept it
> doesn't render it valid.

Being as compatible as possible with MASM has been the primary goal of
supporting Intel syntax. Intel's SDM doesn't specify complete assembly
language; it serves as a reference where possible/sensible.