Re: Proposal: Replacement for "baseless" code terminology

2012-06-18 Thread STEVEN DAHARI
Steven here, JRAIC sounds Jurassicr, what some Intel enthusiasts call the Mainframe and all Mainframers - counting me. > Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:28:55 -0500 > From: joa...@swbell.net > Subject: Proposal: Replacement for "baseless" code terminology > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > >

Re: To Gen or Not To Gen

2012-06-18 Thread Edward Jaffe
n 6/17/2012 8:18 AM, Hardee, Chuck wrote: Hello Listers! I am in the process of writing a macro and would like to control whether or not some MNOTEs are generated. What I am looking for is whether or not I can check the current status of GEN versus NOGEN. If the macro is assembled and PRINT

Re: Base registers

2012-06-18 Thread Tom Marchant
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:01:05 -0400, John Gilmore wrote: >Unbased is better by a wide margin than baseless. > >I should still, however, prefer a non-negative form. I don't have an entirely satisfactory suggestion, but I sometimes refer to it as "Relative code". IMO, Unbased suffers from the same

Re: DS 0H

2012-06-18 Thread Ray Mullins
On 2012-06-13 10:21, Pesce, Andy wrote: I was always taught: LABELEQU* to distinguish a label. However, when I perform maintenance on a program that someone else wrote with: LABELDS 0H I use that way. This keeps it standardized throughout the program as not to confuse the next p

Re: Base registers

2012-06-18 Thread McKown, John
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List > [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 6:23 AM > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Base registers > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Berg > w

YA wishlist item.

2012-06-18 Thread Paul Gilmartin
Excerpted from IBM-MAIN: >The assembly uses the BATCH option. There are multiple assembly steps and >the RETURN CODE you are quoting is from the LAST batched assemble. > The OP and several followups (including mine) were misled by this. It would be a useful enhancement if HLASM provided a summary

Re: Base registers

2012-06-18 Thread Phil Smith III
Steve Comstock wrote: >I was going to suggest 'free base' as a 'positive' way >of saying one is relatively free from using base registers, >but that term also has unfortunate conotations. Indeed..."debased" would be my choice! :-) ...phsiii

Re: Base registers

2012-06-18 Thread Steve Comstock
On 6/18/2012 4:05 AM, Fred van der Windt wrote: All your bases are belong to us ? For great justice. Fred! Says the Dutchman replying to the Swede! I love this list! -- Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. 303-355-2752 http://www.trainersfriend.com * To get a good

Re: Base registers

2012-06-18 Thread Rob van der Heij
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Berg wrote: > All your bases are belong to us ? LOL. Just when I was convinced we had cross-talk with the IBM-MAIN list ;-) May the source be with you...

Re: Base registers

2012-06-18 Thread Fred van der Windt
> All your bases are belong to us ? For great justice. Fred! - ATTENTION: The information in this electronic mail message is private and confidential, and only intended for the addressee. Should you receive this message by mistake, y

SV: Base registers

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Berg
All your bases are belong to us ? Regards, Thomas Berg ___ Thomas Berg Specialist AM/SM&S SWEDBANK AB (publ) > -Ursprungligt meddelande- > Från: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > l...@listserv.uga.edu] För John

Re: Base registers

2012-06-18 Thread Binyamin Dissen
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:24:14 +1000 Robin Vowels wrote: :>From: "Watkins, Douglas" :>Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2012 11:28 PM :>> Here's one way to do standard EXecute without a base register: > :>> AHI R2,-1 Minus 1 for EX :>BTW, :>BCTR 2,0 will do a better job. Unles