From: bc@nospicedham.freeuk.com   
      
   On 21/12/2017 14:33, Terje Mathisen wrote:   
   > Bartc wrote:   
   >> On 21/12/2017 06:14, James Van Buskirk wrote:   
   >> The standard set of registers already is different from what is   
   >> hardcoded:   
   >>   
   >> Internal code    Register name   
   >>   0               AX   
   >>   1               CX   
   >>   2               DX   
   >>   3               BX   
   >>   4               SP   
   >>   5               BP   
   >>   6               SI   
   >>   7               DI   
   >>   
   >> Why aren't they named AX,BX,CX,DX instead of AX,CX,DX,BX?   
   >   
   > This is quite obvious:   
   >   
   > By putting them in this order, all the registers that were capable of   
   > memory ops were located in one group, i.e. 3-7.   
      
   I don't know if that makes any more sense. It's not as though the memory   
   group is just the top half. And it doesn't stop SP being at the top.   
      
   > Anyway, I personally agree with James here: Your idea is pretty much   
   > bonkers but since it won't affect anyone else it really doesn't matter.   
      
   So, using a set of register names like this:   
      
     R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R14   
      
   is bonkers, but a set like this isn't:   
      
     EAX ECX EDX EBX ESP EBP ESI EDI R8D R9D R10D R11D R12D R13D R14D R15D   
      
   with special registers all over the place.   
      
   OK. I wouldn't like to be a postman where you live if the houses are   
   identified in the same manner.   
      
   --   
   bartc   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   > :-)   
   >   
   > Merry Christmas everyone!   
   >   
   > Terje   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)