On 7 March 2013 07:53, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> wrote: [With respect to GR32=NO|YES on IHASDWA] > Regarding how you'd know, I have no idea. This wasn't done in an APAR.
So how did *you* find out? Word of mouth, stumbled across it in the macro, or an internal doc of some sort? Or are you perhaps the one who updated IHASDWA? > Regarding LR 15,R5 > surely you provided the equate of R5 (or some macro did); fix/enhance the > equate/macro. Right - I provided (in a macro) R5 EQU 5,,,,GR32 which is fine for the LR, but of course not for the CPYA. I also have an equate for the ARs AR5 EQU 5,,,,AR which will work with the CPYA but not the LR. I could remove the GR32, but then we're back to the beginning. The whole point is to allow the assembler to detect certain inappropriate uses of symbols. > I see "yregs", for example, which apparently is owned by DFSMS, has no > facility for adding the register-size attribute. You might request that they > do so. That would just break SETRP for more people! > Regarding LR / CPYA vs LAE: They are not equivalent. Sometimes the difference > doesn't matter; sometimes it does. Sure. > Macros that are adjusted incrementally tend to stay on the conservative side. > And the "LR" has existed "forever". Well, I would've thought that in this case LAE would be more conservative than adding the CPYA (if in AR mode). The "LR" is already parameterized, and will emit an LGR if in 64-bit mode. The bottom line is that I can't see a way to both use the TYPECHECK(REGISTER) option, and use SETRP in AR mode with RUB=(...). (Well, I can, of course - I changed RUB=(R5) to RUB=(5), thus avoiding the warning, but also avoiding the checking. Ed/John - help me out here! What's the "right" way of doing this (on my part or IBM's)? Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
