https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929
--- Comment #6 from jbeulich at suse dot com --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > The problem is that the intel asm syntax is just badly defined (broken by > design). I'm not aware of any compiler that would emit for such testcases > something that could be assembled correctly with gas. At the risk of stating the obvious, Intel syntax implies that global symbols would have a prefix character appended, typically an underscore, or that otherwise global symbols avoid the assembler recognized identifiers. This sadly is a growing set as new register extensions get added. IOW people wanting to avoid having to rename their symbols eventually would need to also restrict the set of recognized register names via suitable .arch directives.(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > It is far easier to use (the default) assembler syntax that is properly > designed and doesn't have flaws like this. While in the general case I agree, there are downsides when it comes to wanting to make use of macros to "stand in" for instructions, and then wanting to e.g. derive symbols from macro arguments specifying registers. Such macros need to go to some length to get rid of the % character.
