At 11:30 -0500 on 12/30/2010, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: A bug or a feature?:
Why don't you think that register 15 is a valid base register
for a long-displacement instruction? When you code
USING BASE,3
it is equivalent to
USING (BASE,BASE+4096),3
ONLY for 12-bit B+D instructions. Fo
At 16:35 +0100 on 12/30/2010, Martin =?UTF-8?B?VHLDvGJuZXI=?= wrote
about Re: A bug or a feature?:
John McK,
Sounds like the USING statement needs an enhancment to allow the
specification of a lower limit since the lower limit is no longer
That would fix it.
But I tend to argue that what I
On Dec 30, 2010, at 16:46, John Ehrman wrote:
> Could you elaborate on this statement?
>
>> In some cases the assembler, using 32-bit arithmetic, will generate
>> instructions that produce mathematically incorrect results in 64-bit
>> mode.
>
> Expression evaluation is indeed done using 32-bit ari
Could you elaborate on this statement?
> In some cases the assembler, using 32-bit arithmetic, will generate
> instructions that produce mathematically incorrect results in 64-bit
> mode.
Expression evaluation is indeed done using 32-bit arithmetic, but I can't
see how that would "generate instru
On Dec 30, 2010, at 13:11, Blaicher, Chris wrote:
> The answer comes from the POP manual.
>
> "The displacement for LA is treated as a 12-bit
> unsigned binary integer. The displacement for LAY is
> treated as a 20-bit signed binary integer."
>
> It is perfectly legal and appropriate for the LAY t
The answer comes from the POP manual.
"The displacement for LA is treated as a 12-bit
unsigned binary integer. The displacement for LAY is
treated as a 20-bit signed binary integer."
It is perfectly legal and appropriate for the LAY to go negative.
Christopher Y. Blaicher
Senior Software Develo
On Dec 30, 2010, at 10:05, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
> You'll notice that the range in not addressed at all for long
> displacement instructions.
>
I wonder whether that was an oversight or a shortcut.
-- gil
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:41:59 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
>
>HLASM puts a lower limit of label-534388 on the USING when
>used with a long displacement instruction. But where does
>it say that in the manual?
5.46.4.3 Range of an ordinary USING instruction
The range of an ordinary USING instruction
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> [mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:31 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: A bug or a feature?
>
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:36:14 +0100, Martin
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:36:14 +0100, Martin wrote:
>One should use the offset off of the only valid/declared
>base-register at that point which is 3
Why don't you think that register 15 is a valid base register
for a long-displacement instruction? When you code
USING BASE,3
it is equivalent to
I did NOT find that sentence.
I simply summarized how I have observed HLASM to work.
Let's break it down.
First, you stated that HLASM generated the wrong negative offset in an LAY
instruction. Not true. The code generated was correct. HLASM used the
base register requiring the smallest offse
John B,
>> An ASMA303W message, indicating multiple address resolutions, is NOT issued
when a USING of the form USING (from,thru),register-list is issued.
Where did you find that sentence?
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at http://www.picapcpu.de
Martin,
Both R3 and R15 are valid base registers at the point where the two LAY
instructions are issued.
Put an EJECT prior to the two LAY instructions and take a look at the USING
map at the top of the page.
An ASMA303W message, indicating multiple address resolutions, is NOT issued
when a USIN
I tend to agree with you on that. I guess the "proper" using would have to have
a 3rd parameter which defaults to the first parameter: USING
(BASE,END,START),REG would put up a "USING" where REG is assumed to be BASE+0
and the valid range is START<=BASE<=END. And where START=BASE if not specifie
John B,
>> Both LAY instructions address the same instruction, but use different
offsets, as one would expect.
NO
One should use the offset off of the only valid/declared
base-register at that point which is 3
and the other one should use what I gave explicit (which is the same).
--
Martin
Pi
John McK,
>> Sounds like the USING statement needs an enhancment to allow the
specification of a lower limit since the lower limit is no longer
That would fix it.
But I tend to argue that what I intended to say with the range
specification on the using was exactly that (and no extra range up
fro
On Dec 30, 2010, at 06:58, McKown, John wrote:
> That is interesting. It is easily "fixed" by putting in a DROP 15 statement
> after the NOMORE1 labelled instruction. But it makes me wonder about the 20
> bit offset (-Y) instructions. I'm used to the offset being a 12 bit unsigned
> number. Whi
Martin,
My PTF level is UK48077.
R3 points to BASE at offset 590.
R15 points to an unlabeled instruction at offset 562.
Both LAY instructions address the same instruction, but use different
offsets, as one would expect.
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler Li
That is interesting. It is easily "fixed" by putting in a DROP 15 statement
after the NOMORE1 labelled instruction. But it makes me wonder about the 20 bit
offset (-Y) instructions. I'm used to the offset being a 12 bit unsigned
number. Which means it ranges from 0 to 4096. For some reason, I th
John,
are you saying that the two LAY instructions generate the same offset?
What PTF-Level is your VSE and your HLASM?
Mine is: 4.3 HLASM is at: (PTF UK59313)
HLASM R6.0
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at http://www.picapcpu.de
Martin,
There is no overlap on the base registers, so no warning message is issued.
The code generated is correct.
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu]
On Behalf Of Martin Trübner
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 4
I am out of the office until 01/04/2011.
Note: This is an automated response to your message "A bug or a feature?"
sent on 12/30/2010 3:00:31 AM.
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
I have a case where HLASM creates the wrong negative offset in a LAY
instruction.
That was at least my first thought when I cut the program down to
isolate the error, I found that it is caused by the rule- "closest base
will be used" - but in my particular case I did not get an error
message a
23 matches
Mail list logo
