On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:30:21PM +0100, Paulo Pinto wrote: [...] > Maybe the best way to fix this issue is to follow what other > language standards do (C++, Ada) and only define that inline > assembly is possible and how the entry point, e.g. asm () looks > like. > > The real inline assembly syntax is then left implementation > specific.
But isn't this what Walter was arguing against? He wanted to standardize inline assembly syntax for x86 because leaving it up to implementation resulted in the current mess of Intel syntax vs. GNU syntax (which can be extremely confusing if you're not well-versed in both syntaxes, since the order of operands are swapped and there are some subtle notational differences). T -- Computers shouldn't beep through the keyhole.
