Talk:GNU Assembler

Out of date

The Mac OS X example contains typos (addl $16 should be addl $16, %esp), and the _start label should be named start. Nevertheless, the example fails to assemble in recent versions of Mac OS X.

Trace:

$ clang -c -o hello.o hello.s
$ ld -o hello -macosx_version_min 10.6 hello.o
$ ./hello
Bus error: 10

Specs:

• clang 4.1
• ld64-134.9
• Xcode 4.5
• Mac OS X 10.8.2
• MacBook Pro 2009

--User:Mcandre

A note of warning

Most of this page seems to contain irrelevant compile instructions and personal consideration (e.g. the fact that gas supports many "obscure processors" - what is an obscure processor?). I did some cleanup, but guys please think twice before writing your personal crap on wikipedia! This is supposed to be an high-quality encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.105.13.77 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of gas

I compiled many criticisms of GNU assembler on x86 architecture in single article. Do you think it should be linked from this article? [1]

Vid512 15:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

These appear to be your personal opinions, and as such don't really meet Wikipedia's standard for sourcing. Were these compiled from sources which may carry more weight? Chris Cunningham 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, these are my personal remarks. However, many people do share these objections, I just haven't found them all listed in single document.

I think criticism of GAS syntax is pretty common for assembly programmers (mainly x86), and should be included. How to do it in wikipedia-okay way? Shall I collect list of other sources that place these objections, and back-up every ojection with links to other people who argue about same thing?

What kind of sources count? (GAS development mailing list, random posts on development forums, ...) Vid512 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead trees are the best sources. Failing that, web publications, as opposed to random comments which happen to be immortalised on the web, are acceptable. Blogs usually aren't. The general philosophy is that any criticism which is truly notable should already be found in such sources. If people have to crib it together from less official references, it probably isn't mature enough to include at this stage. Chris Cunningham 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the section called Criticism should be replaced by a simple note about AT&T vs Intel syntax for specifically x86 and x86_64 architectures, or dropped completely. Nerdcorenet (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The current criticism section should be removed entirely. According to this page, the Intel syntax is more common on Windows, while AT&T syntax is more common on Unix. Thus, the "criticism" boils down to "it's not what I'm used to". And then - if that wasn't enough - the next sentence contradicts the first by saying that GAS does support Intel syntax. So the entire section is worthless. It's like criticising a book for not being in English, and then saying there is an English version. Vanhedrarn (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Naming of executable as

If anyone has sources about As_(Unix) being linked to gas, they should be added here too. Wqwt (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)