This is practically axiomatic in assembly language programming.
It's just not worth it to turn you code into what you'd need to turn it into in order to make it as small (or as fast) as it can possibly be on that specific version of that specific microarchitecture from that specific manufacturer, such work being undone by the next version of the hardware.
AT&T syntax will always look weird to me
AT&T syntax is meant to be a generic assembly language syntax; it's supposed to look equally weird to everyone, regardless of what CPU they're writing code for. GAS will accept Intel syntax, or a somewhat heterodox variant thereof. NASM is the usual assembler of choice on modern x86 Unix-a-likes, I think.
Comments
This is practically axiomatic in assembly language programming.
It's just not worth it to turn you code into what you'd need to turn it into in order to make it as small (or as fast) as it can possibly be on that specific version of that specific microarchitecture from that specific manufacturer, such work being undone by the next version of the hardware.
AT&T syntax is meant to be a generic assembly language syntax; it's supposed to look equally weird to everyone, regardless of what CPU they're writing code for. GAS will accept Intel syntax, or a somewhat heterodox variant thereof. NASM is the usual assembler of choice on modern x86 Unix-a-likes, I think.
http://www.nasm.us/
Hey, if the Linux kernel devs can do it, why not them?