Timeline for Finding the maximum of a given list of data in GNU Assembly x86 (32 bit)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6, 2017 at 18:58 | history | edited | Rafael | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 119 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2017 at 18:47 | history | edited | Rafael | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
add clang
|
| Mar 6, 2017 at 13:21 | comment | added | Rafael | Perhaps the compiler writers took a shortcut? When you program intel syntax, you never use size specifiers unless you are referencing memory. I would not use them unless you need them. When you read the code you can clearly see what instructions are manipulating memory because they stand out. Look at David's example compared to the GCC output, his is much easier to read imo. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 11:07 | comment | added | David Wohlferd | I'm probably not the best person to ask about these suffixes, since I'm not a big fan of ATT syntax (which is what this is). But as you can see from Rafael's example, gcc's output always uses them. Not everyone would agree that gcc sets the standard here, but it's suggestive. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 5:10 | comment | added | Hungry Blue Dev | Nice to see an extensive interaction of Reviewers. :-) Usually we see a reference to other answers. Also, i meant to ask... is it a good practice to add the suffixes to the operations? After all it's optional. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 2:13 | comment | added | David Wohlferd |
Not all that different than what I came up with. It seems they used both lea and add so there's that. I note that you used x64, while OP explicitly referenced x86.
|
|
| Mar 6, 2017 at 0:44 | history | edited | Rafael | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2017 at 0:26 | history | answered | Rafael | CC BY-SA 3.0 |