On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin < 00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote:
> ... > Is there any limit to that offset? Might one use: > USING TinyArea-4000000,Byte-4000000 > > The beginning of the dependent range must fall within 4095 bytes of the hosting range. And to be more than useless, it would need to be within 512k-1 of the register base. Beyond that, try it if curious. > The hardware folks have freedom to provide new addressing modes with > larger reach at their whim. For HLASM to enforce limits at USING > time is shortsighted. Only base-displacement should perform such > enforcement. > > And IIRC I've posted here a case where HLASM allows a base-displacement > resolution which is unconditionally incorrect in AMODE 64 and algebraically > incorrect in AMODE 31 or 24. I believe this is due to ignoring an > overflow. HLASM should report the error and users should accept that > (extremely improbable) code relying on the loophole is incorrect. > Well, a bug should be reported via the regular channels. Since I don't recall what you're referring to, I can only say that overflow is ignored by design in addressing; from the birth of the architecture. > > -- gil > -- sas
