Alex, Please stop already. We know you don't agree with the decision. Stefan has agreed privately that he shouldn't have submitted those, and that it set a bad precedent. As you say in your email, *YOU* even questioned it when he did it, and he agreed that he would change them from Intel syntax to AT&T syntax.
The "change" WAS to formalize an unwritten rule that had been broken a few times in the past. There was significant discussion in several meetings about the reasons for and against standardizing on AT&T syntax. Many of us, including myself, learned x86 assembly using Intel syntax, and find it easier to read. Mixing Intel syntax with AT&T syntax is just confusing and seems like bad practice. Because of this, the decision was made to go with AT&T syntax only. It was NOT done to spite you, whatever you might believe.
If you have a reason for using Intel syntax that is really more persuasive than keeping the asm code in the project consistent, feel free to state it. Otherwise, PLEASE let's move on.
Martin
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:44 PM, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 3:06 PM Alex G. mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, I believe that this arbitrary change was done as an act of spite towards a set of engineers.
Well, wow. This just got weird. I think I'm done with this discussion.
ron
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot