On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:07:26 -0400, John Gilmore wrote: >I am happy to have David join in my recommendation, and I can imagine >a circumstance in which RLLG would be more useful than RLL, but RLL >itself does 64-bit rotations.
Really? That's not the way I read the POO. The description for RLL and RLLG reads: <quote> The 32-bit or 64-bit third operand is rotated left the number of bits specified by the second-operand address, and the result is placed at the first-operand location. Except for when the R1 and R3 fields designate the same register, the third operand remains unchanged in general register R3. For ROTATE LEFT SINGLE LOGICAL (RLL), bits 0-31 of general registers R1 and R3 remain unchanged. ... For RLL, the first and third operands are in bit positions 32-63 of general registers R1 and R3, respectively. For RLLG, the operands are in bit positions 0-63 of the registers. </quote> -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
