If the tables reside above the bar, the addresses inside the tables need
to be 8 bytes long.
As long as the tables are not bigger than 2 GB, I would use relative
adresses
(related to the table origin) instead. This way 4 byte relative
addresses are
sufficient, and you have to store the table origin only once and you need
simply add the table origin every time when you follow such a relative
address.
And another positive side effect: it is possible to move the tables, if
necessary,
and you need not relocate the adresses inside the table; the relative
addresses
are still valid after relocation.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 07.12.2012 00:35, schrieb John Gilmore:
Why put addresses in tables?
One of my macros generates a table for glb- and lub-seeking
binary-search operations. The lexicographic subscript of a bounding
element is often of less interest than its entry sequence or another,
arbitrary code value. This macro therefore optionally generates
another table containing such values, making it accessible by
providing its address.
Or again, tabular-function tables are often compound ones containing
two atomic tables, one of arguments and another of values, the
addresses of both of which are stored in a stub.
In general, there are many reasons for wishing to include addresses in
generated tables, which can be and often are very much more complex in
detail than hand-coded ones.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
