OK, LFI/IILF is probably best if length is known as assembly time. As best as I can recall, I never had that case. I did however, do that to set up a primitive GETMAIN with subpool and length.
sas On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 4:33 PM Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > OILH Rx,X'xx00' is safe and efficient after the length is loaded in any > normal way. I use IILH sometimes when I know the length is <64K-1. But > there's no rational reason for that. > > LLILH Rx,X'xx00' is safe and efficient if you want to insert the length > afterwards. Only reason I can think of is if length is an unsigned > halfword in memory. > > These don't allow for some dynamic specification of the pad character. > I've never had that case, but if you do, then ICM Rx,B'1000',pad would be > how I'd do that. > > sas >
