On 2012-07-09 at 19:05:37 [+0200], Alex Smith <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9 July 2012 17:17, pulkomandy <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is a bit confusing because AX BX ... are the names of the 16-bit > > version of these registers. I'd go for RAX everywhere (but maybe others > > don't agree on that). > > Then you have the same argument that R* are the names of the 64-bit > versions, which isn't correct on 32-bit. Although they are the 16-bit > version names, I think they make more sense than the 64-bit names because > they look like the "base" names of the registers, without any size prefix. > Of course, if other disagree with me on that I can change it. I find neither naming scheme optimal. The best I've come up with is to use a placeholder character instead (like "xax", "_ax", or "$ax"), but that isn't that beautiful either. So, either way is fine by me. CU, Ingo