I've never understood why people fight against AT&T/gas syntax when they're using gcc and therefore gas to do C compiling. It just creates extra work to have to switch back and forth between two assembly syntaxes.<p>It's like using an Intel compiler that's bundled with a ntel syntax assembler and then coding your assembly in using gas. This is just more work.<p>Why not just use an assembler that uses Intel syntax? Because you like extra percent signs, a different order of operands, etc.? These are small differences.<p>What do you achieve by using an Intel syntax assembler? A few small sytanctical differences? Some small differences in macro facilities? Assembly language does not have heaps of abstraction. That's the whole point of using it. A machine instruction has only one form. It's a number.<p>So why do we need multiple assembly language syntaxes?<p>Maybe some people just like extra work. Let's write a new language just for fun. Let's change some syntax just for fun. Let's fix something that's not broken, just for fun, ignoring all the things have remained broken and unfixed year after year.