In order to draw attention to this point, I changed the subject.
On Dec 9, 2007 10:10 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Klaas-Jan wrote:
> >
> > There is of course the option of taking the current behavior as
> > "correct", effectively forgetting about this piece of the
> > specification.
> > I can, however, imagine a situation in which someone would want to do
> > manual register allocation (writing Parrot assembly) for
> > certain cases. I'm not sure whether this manual allocation would be
> > disregarded by IMCC which then does its own reg. allocation.
>
> That part of the spec/documentation was generally a caution against
> using the low-level registers, because they aren't guaranteed to do what
> you expect. Really, I'd be okay with disallowing the $-less register
> variables in PIR.
>
> Allison
>
Is there anybody who thinks the removal from PIR of $-less registers
("absolute" or PASM registers) should not be done?
kjs
