A web server, written in assembly language

http://chiselapp.com/user/johnfound/repository/phWeb/index

x86, disgusting

but it's not plain old assembly

this kills the boner

this kills the boner

FASM

No thanks.

>>6
What's wrong with FASM? I particularly like it a lot.

>>7
FAScisM

FASM > TASM > NASM > RosASM > MASM >>>>>>>>>> GAS

>>8
So FASM is what you get when you take cis out of fascism? Heh.

FASM > MASM > NASM > TASM > GAS >>>>>>>>>> FUCK BETOV AND FUCK THE ``REACTOS'' ASSEMBLER THAT NEVER WAS

>>10
No wonder those trannies never get any work done.

>>11
Where does Plan 9's x86 assembler fit in?

Fit it in my anus!

>>11
Betov is crazy like tdavis, but in a good way.

>>13
Plan 9's assembler is really only intended to generate code for the C compiler; thus, you can't rely on it if you need to generate code that the C compiler never would (e.g., segment overrides) or output formats other than what the OS expects to use.

On the plus side, you don't need to distinguish 16 and 32 bit register names like you do with other AT&T style assemblers, which is nice. Having to specify both a size suffix for the opcode and use a different register name is the second most annoying thing about the AT&T style (the first being the order of operands, but if you fix that it isn't AT&T at all anymore).

>>13,16
Plan 9's asm appears to be written by idiots intent on inventing their own incompatible syntax, just like GNU. Intel defines the instruction set, they get to pick the mnemonics and syntax. Everyone trying to be different by ignoring the official documentation is just stupid.

>>17
Plan 9's assemblers use a common syntax for all architectures, just like other AT&T assemblers. The real idiocy would to use a different syntax for each architecture whose official documentation follows different conventions.

If you are targeting x86 exclusively or are writing lots of code that exercises x86 specific features, it probably doesn't make sense to use an AT&T style assembler. However, if you only need a little asm. here and there and are mostly using C to target multiple architectures, using the same assembler your compiler uses is often a better choice.

Like a DOS

Like a BOSS