I have the AMD docs for the SSE instructions which document JUST SSE (eg 26568).

However, Intel uses a slightly different syntax from AMD for SSE and fasm
is based on the Intel syntax.

Unfortunately the Intel docs (253666 and 253667) seem to have the SSE documentation merged with all the other documentation which is completely unhelpful.

is there any pdf I can download which gives JUST the SSE Intel documentation?

(the way that AMD's 26568 does)

if only fasm would support the AMD syntax and I could get on and
use the extremely clear AMD docs.



(I will now get flamed by all the Intel fanboys)

I've never noticed the syntax difference :S

Do you have an example of an instruction documented by AMD that doesn't work in fasm as documented by the AMD manuals?

As you, I'll also like to have the manuals arranged in the way AMD does but haven't seen anything like that

AMD uses:

movd reg64, xmm
movd xmm, reg64

whereas Intel uses:

movq reg64, xmm
movq xmm, reg64

fasm doesnt accept the AMD syntax


for the background threads and posts of this see:
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=80780#80780
movd reg64, xmm

and

movd xmm, reg64

are AMD syntax, but fasm wont compile them

that thread then got diverted to an existing thread,

have a look at:

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=81075#81075

in this second post I gave a very complicated macro for them
enabling fasm to compile the above 2 instructions.

and later a debugged form of the macros is:

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=81101#81101

I cannot remember if that got debugged further, but I have
a version of the macro which functions correctly

maybe its not as big a deal as I thought it was,

I think I will just use the AMD docs and IF fasm

rejects a usage to see what the Intel docs say and

make a note on the AMD doc printout.


what happened at the time of the aforementioned thread is

that it was diverted to a DIFFERENT topic and in that thread

a lot of different things were being discussed. I didnt have

the time to read the thread carefully and jumped to some

wrong conclusions.


my original post shouldnt have been diverted but someone

should have remarked that I merely should use movq instead

of movd.


I only found this out when you asked for an example and had

to wade through the Intel docs, just the contents are 18 pages.

movd for 64-bits? AMD naming is weird. movq at least comes from QUAD WORD.