On 25 June 2018 at 21:49, Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote: > > Seriously, l like it and would use it. I'd prefer it not be tied to USING > because there are other reasons to not use a register (I think; can't come > up with any offhand, but I feel like there are?). Maybe: > > I suppose there are plenty of cases outside the USING where it is harmful to modify a register. Don't forget the base register, for those who don't write baseless yet. And reading the value from the wrong register can also keep you entertained for a while. I find these bugs mostly get in when I go back and change the original choice of registers because it appears handy to pick another one.
Quite often the USING remains valid but the register points to another object. I can see how you would put the USING and DROP within the loop when the pointer is incremented. When you're picking up the next pointer from a chain, you end up having to quality the field outside the USING scope again. If anything, I would want tie this to the static nesting scope or block structure rather than manually having to free up the protection. Instead of having this done during assembly, you could also have it as a post-processing on the LISTING or ADATA. I inherited something that goes through the assembly listing and frowns at known concerns.Personally, I don't think this one is highest on my facepalm list. Rob
