How is this not an assembler?—even with your description which matches an assembler to a tee. It genuinely is an assembler, and I am not sure how you are thinking otherwise.
And where is the AT&T? Did you even look at the syntax or read the article? Is it just the use of `%rex` to prevent namespace collisions with parameters and constants which could hypothetically be named `rex` (and there could be good reasons they are named that too)? There are no other sigils in the grammar. The order of the operands is Intel-like. The memory operand syntax is Intel-like.
Comments
How is this not an assembler?—even with your description which matches an assembler to a tee. It genuinely is an assembler, and I am not sure how you are thinking otherwise.
And where is the AT&T? Did you even look at the syntax or read the article? Is it just the use of `%rex` to prevent namespace collisions with parameters and constants which could hypothetically be named `rex` (and there could be good reasons they are named that too)? There are no other sigils in the grammar. The order of the operands is Intel-like. The memory operand syntax is Intel-like.