Ouch. Okay we *are* in fact looking at the difference between Intel (asasm) and AT&T (gas [also, yuck]) syntax.
If there isn't that much asm code, we can translate it by hand. If there's a whole lot of it, maybe it would be more productive to try to parse out the AST and then pretty print it out to AT&T syntax. Macros might make that really hard, though.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:03 PM, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
On 24-06-2013, at 5:53 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r@gmail.com wrote:
Is it minor variance in syntax or are we talking the difference between
at&t and intel assembler? How much assembly code is there? I wasn't able to find anything on this asasm, can you point me at something?
It turns out (I had no idea that it even existed, I've never made use of the root project) that it is part of the gcc-for-RISC OS project. There is a linux version (obviously, or I wouldn't have had the problem) which I was given along with the blt sources.
With no experience in using `gas` I can't really even guess at what the differences might be, though at least the actual instructions must surely be the same! Although, given the way of the world, maybe not. For an example, here is the asm file for the x11 helper routine, written for the same asasm tool
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Oxymorons: Sweet sorrow