[coreboot] [RFC] Proposal for policy for changing the development guidelines

Martin Roth gaumless at gmail.com
Sun Jan 31 03:54:40 CET 2016

  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.


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:44 PM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 3:06 PM Alex G. <mr.nuke.me at 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 at coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

More information about the coreboot mailing list