Talk:Assembly

0x123

In the AT&T Syntax section the 123 which has been used in the rest of the document has been changed to 0x123. I believe that this is misleading. The values in this section should match those in the others. -Jhawthorn 00:05, 8 February 2007 (CST)

I quickly ran a test, using plain numbers work both as immediates and memory operands in GAS, and this creates the same output as in the NASM counterpart. Hence 0x123 is not just misleading, its incorrect. Fixing it - Combuster 06:12, 8 February 2007 (CST)

Rollbacks / undos on 2011-04-18

Sorry for the messed-up history, I confused rollback and undo. On the subject: The discussions of the pros and cons of Intel vs. AT&T syntax have been numerous and heated. I would prefer to keep any "advantages / disadvantages" discussion out of the article, and have everybody make up his own mind. -- Solar 08:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to list any of the subjective advantages/disadvantages, only the facts; nor favour any of the two syntaxes. I just wanted to list the more obvious ones (e.g., the % prefix in AT&T works great for extensibility, since it lets you access the register namespace) so people know what they get into when they make their decision. --Love4boobies 14:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)