On 28 June 2018 at 16:23, Phil Smith III wrote:
...
> I like the idea of PROTECT/UNPROT instructions*. Seems like the cleanest way
> to do it to me.
...
> *I wasn't sure of the right term for "a thing that the assembler looks at but
> doesn't actually generate code"; Google found me IBM pages th
Hobart Spitz wrote:
>I went to Cornell, where PL/C was developed. In my freshman class, anyone
>who already knew a programming language (I knew 3 then) was given work in
>PL/1 (as then called), using PL/C, instead of in FORTRAN. I think we were
>one of the first classes, if not the very first, to
Phil.
I went to Cornell, where PL/C was developed. In my freshman class, anyone
who already knew a programming language (I knew 3 then) was given work in
PL/1 (as then called), using PL/C, instead of in FORTRAN. I think we were
one of the first classes, if not the very first, to beta test it. B
Hobart Spitz wrote:
>the latter..., or something even milder, I just don't know what. Getting
>into the habit of ignoring warnings is not a great idea, and it means
>questions for the next person that has to look at your code.
Thanks for taking my point as intended, sir. Always risky these days..
Phil,
> Seriously, not picking a fight, just don't understand whether you're
saying "This doesn't work because" or "Note that in cases like this,
there'd be some tinkering"?
the latter..., or something even milder, I just don't know what. Getting
into the habit of ignoring warnings is not a grea
On 2018-06-28, at 09:23:11, Charles Mills wrote:
> FWIW, I see things the same as Phil. Either unprotect the register before
> bumping it, or don't use the feature, or potentially ignore the warning.
>
Tricky if one must use DROP to unprotect. In Hobart's case the
register being updated is the
FWIW, I see things the same as Phil. Either unprotect the register before
bumping it, or don't use the feature, or potentially ignore the warning.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Phil Smith III
Sent: Th
Hobart Spitz wrote:
>If you are traversing a linked-list of control blocks (e.g.), you might
>validly modify a USING register that points to a DSECT of that control
>block.
Sure, but...so? You'd explicitly unprotect, change, reprotect. That's the whole
point. (Or not protect at all; this is optio
