On 10/11/2017 2:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
The equivalent I have is DOWHILE,TROT,R14,R2,B'0001' -- the last
operand could be O, or it could be an UNTIL loop with NO (and any
other typical condition). But we allow bare condition-code masks,
too, especially for cases where the mnemonics
On 10/11/2017 12:05 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
The rightmost bits of the register that are not used to form the
address, which are bits 61-63 in the doubleword case and bits 52-63 in
the 4K-byte case, are
ignored but should contain zeros; otherwise, the program may not
operate compatibly in the
On 10/11/2017 12:05 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
What do the DO and ENDDO macros do here? Do they generate a test for
CC=3 and loop? That seems like a lot of assumption to build into a DO
macro...
.4506 B982 36995 ¦ XGR R0,R0 Ensure no stop char
.
On 11 October 2017 at 17:18, Steve Smith wrote:
> Well, Ed's not answering, but I know the answer. He presented his
> structured programming macros at SHARE at least once. The UNTIL=NO
> means the usual conditional, i.e. "Not Ones", or "Not Overflow".
> Neither is
Yeah, the architecture should have been to S0C6 if the bits were non-zero.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:19 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Well, Ed's not answering, but I know the answer. He presented his
structured programming macros at SHARE at least once. The UNTIL=NO
means the usual conditional, i.e. "Not Ones", or "Not Overflow".
Neither is English-sensible after TR*, but it gets the right condition
check. Nothing is being
On 10/10/2017 1:52 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
Actually, that clarification is worth the cost of this exercise. So in
this particular case, so long as R0 isn't any of the obvious
two-character values C'00' - C'FF' it should work!
Thanks to input from Tony Harminc and others, we have rehabilitated
From: "Ed Jaffe"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:49 AM
On 10/10/2017 2:49 AM, retired mainframer wrote:
Has your legal team considered the possibility of industrial sabotage? It would be pretty hard
to argue that this