Limitations of Intel Assembly Syntax Compared to AT&T

There is really no advantage to one over the other. I agree though that Intel syntax is much easier to read. Keep in mind that, AFAIK, all GNU tools have the option to use Intel syntax also.

It looks like you can make GDB use Intel syntax with this:

set disassembly-flavor intel

GCC can do Intel syntax with -masm=intel.

The primary syntax for the GNU assembler (GAS) is AT&T. Intel syntax is a relatively new addition to it. x86 assembly in the Linux kernel is in AT&T syntax. In the Linux world, it's the common syntax. In the MS world, Intel syntax is more common.

Personally, I hate AT&T syntax. There are plenty of free assemblers (NASM, YASM) along with GAS that support Intel syntax too, so there won't be any problems doing Intel syntax in Linux.

Beyond that, it's just a syntactic difference. The result of both will be the same x86 machine code.

There is really no advantage to one over the other. I disagree though that Intel syntax is much easier to read, because personally I hate Intel syntax. Keep in mind that, AFAIK, all GNU tools have the option to use Intel syntax also.

at&t noprefix                   intel
mov eax, -4(ebp,edx,4)          mov DWORD PTR[-4 +ebp +edx *4], eax
mov eax, -4(ebp)                mov DWORD PTR[-4 +ebp], eax
mov edx, (ecx)                  mov DWORD PTR[ecx], edx
lea (   ,eax,4), eax            lea eax, DWORD PTR[8 + eax*4]
lea (eax,eax,2), eax            lea eax, DWORD PTR[eax*2+eax]

...and it gets more complicated with more complex instructions

'nuff said.

PS: This answer exists mainly for the reason of highlighting (IMHO) weaknesses in some other answers, which are actually not answers, but opinions. And of course this answer in reality is only my humble opinion.

PPS: I do not hate Intel syntax, I just don't care.