|
From: Frederic W. <fwe...@gm...> - 2009-10-05 21:55:55
|
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:34:24PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Hmm, one idea hits me, how about this? :) > - %register > - %%spvars (%%retval, %%arg0) The problem is that such % or %% symbols have a specific mean in some other well known areas. If we borrow the % from the AT&T assembly syntax style to use register names, that we can retrieve in gcc inline assembly, then one may expect %% to have a meaning inspired from the same area. %% has its sense in gcc inline assembly, but applied there, it looks confusing. I mean, I'm trying to think like someone reading a perf probe command line without any documentation. The more this person can understand this command line without documentation, the better. We know that % is used for register names, some people know that %% is used for register names too but when we are in gcc inline assembly with var to reg resolution and need true registers name. Then if I try to mirror this sense from gcc to perf probe use, I feel confused, especially in the case of %%arg1. In this case, we should rather have %%register and %arg0 :) Hm, %register is a clear pattern. Somehow, %retval looks clear too, retval is verbose enough and % is still logical as return values are most of the time (always?) put in a register. But %%arg0 looks confusing. |