On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 1:43 AM Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 2) If/when we support the C-like assembly syntax in GCC, Thank you for considering supporting the standard BPF assembly syntax in GCC. I agree that C-like asm looks unusual. The main reason to pick that style was the ease of understanding and to avoid gnu vs intel asm order confusion. We didn't want to deal with question whether 'mov r1, r2' means r1->r2 or r2->r1. The C style asm r1=r2 is unambiguous.
