|
From: Frederic W. <fwe...@gm...> - 2009-10-05 21:21:53
|
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >> Hmm, the problem is that %1, %2, etc. is not very self-explainable. >> >> May be %arg1, %arg2, etc.. But would that sound confusing since we >> have % for registers? > > As I sent right now, how about %argumentN ? it will not conflict with > register names... > There are archs that have %arg0 %arg1, ... as register names? Well, arg(n) looks shorter but I won't personnally mind if we eventually chose %argumentN. It's also clear, self-explainable and it won't collide. |