Re: Register names and dollar signs

[Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>]

Greg McGary writes:
 > > I never did like mips's register naming...
 > 
 > Which aspect?  The mnemonics?  The dollar signs?  I have grown to like
 > the mnemonics (except perhaps that MIPS screwed them up!  Four
 > register args isn't enough, k0..k1 are largely wasted, and there
 > aren't enough call-preserved regs, IMO.  SGI n32 and n64 improve
 > things greatly).  I prefer to see mnemonics in disassembly and to have
 > them to universally available without including a header.  Actually,
 > I'm having second thoughts about providing raw register numbers as
 > aliases, and am now thinking of only allowing the mnemonics.  I have
 > run across too many assembler programmers who are oblivious to C
 > calling conventions.  The mnemonics force at least some awareness of
 > register classes and proper usage.

It's the mnemonics.  The assembler shouldn't be defining the ABI.
One reason I hate the mnemonics is because I am aware of C calling
conventions - they're defined using raw register numbers.
I can never remember what k0, etc. really mean and when reading
the output of gcc the mnemonics are just a nuisance getting in my way.

IMO, throw out or otherwise deprecate the mnemonics and stick
with raw register numbers.