Re: Bogus ASMA307E?
On 2016-12-20, at 17:19, Webster, Chris wrote: > What is your initial using for r13? Is DLTABLE part of that dsect? > That shouldn't matter for a dependent USING which is supposed to map one DSECT over part of another DSECT. There's some Bad History here. Warnings for overlapping USINGs and multiple resolution were provided before long displacements (over which HLASM had no control) and dependent usings (over which HLASM had complete control.) > -Original Message- > From: Steve Smith > Sent: December-20-16 10:15 AM > > Well, I found a work-around: > > *USING DLTABD,DLTABLE This fails w/ASMA307E >USING DLTABD-4000,DLTABLE-4000 Trick to fool HLASM > In fact, I recall by experiment that the second offset can be absurdly large, anything within 32-bit range, well beyond any currently supported displacement (that I know of). If I had a dog in this fight, and I had raised it from a puppy before dependent USINGs and long displacements, I'd change the rule so that warnings and errors were never reported at the USING instruction, not even one that's documented but not (IIRC) reported. I would report multiple resolutions (and, of course unresolvables) at the point at which they occur. One day I might submit an SR on a case in which a base and displacement are resolved which are algebraically wrong in AMODE 64. I believe an overflow during resolution is not reported. The restriction of assembly-time arithmetic does not excuse generating code which is clearly incorrect in AMODE 64 and questionable in AMODE 31 or 24. -- gil
Re: Bogus ASMA307E?
What is your initial using for r13? Is DLTABLE part of that dsect? Just checked some code and USING (X,X@END),R11 Seems to work (at least it does for dasm). A dependent using (from the active usings hdr): DBST(X'10994'),R11+X'32FC' X dsect has DBSTmDSXL(DBST$) The using is: USING DBST,DBSTm ...chris. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: December-20-16 10:15 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Bogus ASMA307E? Well, I found a work-around: *USING DLTABD,DLTABLE This fails w/ASMA307E USING DLTABD-4000,DLTABLE-4000 Trick to fool HLASM My brain exploded trying to figure out the workarounds in the old postings. On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Well if that's the design, then the design is an ass. But I don't see > how that's the case, as the manual says otherwise. > > I finally found Robert Ngan's nearly identical post from 2 years ago, > and several older ones, too. There was one reference that implied IBM > won't fix it because of "compatibility" issues. Frankly, that sounds > like a cop-out; it would be more understandable to just say that it's > not a high enough priority yet. > > And IBM hasn't bothered to update the manual either. Sheesh. > > Google was not my friend today. Apparently, the assembler-list > archives aren't Googleable. > > Is there an outstanding SHARE req. for this? > > sas > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Paul Gilmartin > <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc- requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote: > >> On 2016-12-20, at 09:13, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> > I'm getting an error on a dependent USING apparently just because >> > it's >> out >> > of the normal 12-bit offset range... >> > >> > This seems to be a HLASM bug to me. >> > >> No. WAD. This has been discussed here before. (No, I don't like >> it.) >> >> -- gil >> > > > > -- > sas > -- sas
Re: Bogus ASMA307E?
Well, I found a work-around: *USING DLTABD,DLTABLE This fails w/ASMA307E USING DLTABD-4000,DLTABLE-4000 Trick to fool HLASM My brain exploded trying to figure out the workarounds in the old postings. On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Well if that's the design, then the design is an ass. But I don't see how > that's the case, as the manual says otherwise. > > I finally found Robert Ngan's nearly identical post from 2 years ago, and > several older ones, too. There was one reference that implied IBM won't > fix it because of "compatibility" issues. Frankly, that sounds like a > cop-out; it would be more understandable to just say that it's not a high > enough priority yet. > > And IBM hasn't bothered to update the manual either. Sheesh. > > Google was not my friend today. Apparently, the assembler-list archives > aren't Googleable. > > Is there an outstanding SHARE req. for this? > > sas > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Paul Gilmartin <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc- > requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote: > >> On 2016-12-20, at 09:13, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> > I'm getting an error on a dependent USING apparently just because it's >> out >> > of the normal 12-bit offset range... >> > >> > This seems to be a HLASM bug to me. >> > >> No. WAD. This has been discussed here before. (No, I don't like it.) >> >> -- gil >> > > > > -- > sas > -- sas
Re: Bogus ASMA307E?
Well if that's the design, then the design is an ass. But I don't see how that's the case, as the manual says otherwise. I finally found Robert Ngan's nearly identical post from 2 years ago, and several older ones, too. There was one reference that implied IBM won't fix it because of "compatibility" issues. Frankly, that sounds like a cop-out; it would be more understandable to just say that it's not a high enough priority yet. And IBM hasn't bothered to update the manual either. Sheesh. Google was not my friend today. Apparently, the assembler-list archives aren't Googleable. Is there an outstanding SHARE req. for this? sas On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Paul Gilmartin < 0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote: > On 2016-12-20, at 09:13, Steve Smith wrote: > > > I'm getting an error on a dependent USING apparently just because it's > out > > of the normal 12-bit offset range... > > > > This seems to be a HLASM bug to me. > > > No. WAD. This has been discussed here before. (No, I don't like it.) > > -- gil > -- sas
Re: Bogus ASMA307E?
On 2016-12-20, at 09:13, Steve Smith wrote: > I'm getting an error on a dependent USING apparently just because it's out > of the normal 12-bit offset range... > > This seems to be a HLASM bug to me. > No. WAD. This has been discussed here before. (No, I don't like it.) -- gil
Bogus ASMA307E?
I'm getting an error on a dependent USING apparently just because it's out of the normal 12-bit offset range... 04D0 E310 DCE0 0171 1CE0 1760 LAY R1,DLTABLE 1761 USING DLTABD,DLTABLE ** ASMA307E No active USING for operand DLTABLE >From page 200 of HLASM Language Reference: Dependent USING address Is a simply relocatable expression that represents an implicit address within the range of an active USING instruction. The range of an active USING is considered to be that which is valid for generating 12 bit or 20 bit displacements. This seems to be a HLASM bug to me. -- sas