https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257
--- Comment #4 from jbeulich at suse dot com --- (In reply to LIU Hao from comment #3) > (In reply to jbeulich from comment #2) > > Sure, but there's no reason for gas to not accept what MASM would. You also > > don't really make clear why you think this is an issue, and hence why it > > should be changed in gcc. > > Why not? The syntax is invalid because Intel software developer manual has > no reference to such construction. The fact that MASM would accept it > doesn't render it valid. Being as compatible as possible with MASM has been the primary goal of supporting Intel syntax. Intel's SDM doesn't specify complete assembly language; it serves as a reference where possible/sensible.
