Why use the STG instead of ST? Is this ostensibly for 640bit or are we just
assuming everyone wants 64bits now?
On Wed, 3/30/16, ASSEMBLER-LIST automatic digest system
wrote:
Subject: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest - 29 Mar 2016
Ol' friend, your test is incomplete. That LMG doesn't go far enough.
Bob
On 4/1/2016 3:36 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
On 3/31/2016 2:03 PM, Tom Marchant wrote:
ITYM R0.
Indeed!
And the manual doesn't specify that the address returned is a clean 64-bit
address except if it is AMODE 64. So I'd
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:36:01 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:
>Empirical testing shows R0 is returned with a clean 64-bit address, even
>for an old 24-bit program:
I believe it, but do we want to rely on undocumented behavior?
Perhaps an RCF is in order?
--
Tom Marchant
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 15:08:59 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote:
>TMLL R0,X'0001' RMODE(64)
>JORMODE64
Oops. I mean
TMLL R0,X'0001' AMODE(64)
JOAMODE64 Yes, leave bits 0-32 as is
--
Tom Marchant
On 3/31/2016 2:03 PM, Tom Marchant wrote:
ITYM R0.
Indeed!
And the manual doesn't specify that the address returned is a clean 64-bit
address except if it is AMODE 64. So I'd suggest replacing the NILH with
LLGTR R0,R0
Empirical testing shows R0 is returned with a clean 64-bit
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:55:44 -0500, Chuck Arney wrote:
>If you intend to use RMODE64 in the future with that code you will want to
>NOT use that LLGTR.
Right. To cover that case you might want something like this:
LOAD EP=MSGTABLE Load external message table
TMLL
Mark,
>> z/TPF has supported RMODE64 code for over 10 years.
Oups- I love writing code transformed to being run on the
metal by HLASM (I do know Pops by heart), but yet my CV lacks doing
anything in TPF.
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at
It works fine on z/OS 1.13 and above. We have lots of code running from
there. However, only a directed LOAD can be done into RMODE64 or you have
to do the program management yourself which is what we do. I wrote a blog
post on running RMODE64 code a while back.
Chuck Arney
Arney Computer
z/TPF has supported RMODE64 code for over 10 years. But we're a little
different than most other OSes. :-)
- mb
IBM Mainframe Assembler List wrote on
04/01/2016 02:17:06 PM:
> is RMODE64 supported yet on any op-sys (and don't forget
> Scott; he wants it for
Chuck,
holy sh..
is RMODE64 supported yet on any op-sys (and don't forget
Scott; he wants it for COBOL)?
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at http://www.picapcpu.de
<<
Ed,
>> ...and then finally pasted it ...
cann't you see the power of a "mass"-compile any bug left we have
yet to find?
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at http://www.picapcpu.de
If we're insisting on correctness (I wasn't, since Ed just blasted code
from his head into an email), LOAD has no EPNAME argument. Coded as
below, EPNAME should be EPLOC.
On 2016-04-01 03:14, mar...@pi-sysprog.de wrote:
The complete "corrected" version of the loading is this
..
LOAD
13 matches
Mail list logo