On 05/12/2015 01:42 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > But wouldn't it really be "addr2"? This is the address source for the second > argument after all.
Yes, but we already abuse the name. r~
On 05/12/2015 01:42 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > But wouldn't it really be "addr2"? This is the address source for the second > argument after all.
Yes, but we already abuse the name. r~