Very nice! Especially appreciate the practical application. We like dat. :-)
Why not -- from memory; untested; I could be off -- but something like
USING PSA,0
USING PSWDSECT,FLCIOPSW
?
Does not burn a register for nothing.
You can even name the DSECTs and have addressability on a
And you can thank Musial and Ehrman for being able to do that.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 2:38 PM
To:
DC A(0-foocsect) has a valid negative relocatable expression; I don't know
whether those are still supported, and have never used one. I doubt that
they're legal on a USING.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe
Why not -- from memory; untested; I could be off -- but something like
USING PSA,0
USING PSWDSECT,FLCIOPSW
?
Does not burn a register for nothing.
You can even name the DSECTs and have addressability on a couple of
different low-memory PSWs at the same time
OldIOPSW USING
On 2019-11-11, at 09:08:39, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> I must agree that USING on numbers is a questionable feature; also operand
> 1 doesn't have to be 0, anything up to 2gb should work.
>
What's "questionable"? Should the Assembler require a
relocatable expression? Why?
An old (BitSavers)
On 2019-11-11, at 09:25:32, Jonathan Scott wrote:
>
> The USING 0 case used to occur from time to time by accident
> when using PL/S, PL/X or similar compilers which generate
> assembler as an intermediate step, if the programmer switched
> into assembler temporarily. This was because the
That's what I was thinking. Funky way of coding it, but valid.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 9:59 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re:
It's good for a lot more, but an add immediate will be easier on the reader and
perhaps even faster.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, November 11,
What if R9 is not supposed to be zero? Maybe the code is looking at the PSA of
another processor.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Tom Marchant
Ref: Your note of Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:08:39 -0500
The USING 0 case used to occur from time to time by accident
when using PL/S, PL/X or similar compilers which generate
assembler as an intermediate step, if the programmer switched
into assembler temporarily. This was because the programmers
I must agree that USING on numbers is a questionable feature; also operand
1 doesn't have to be 0, anything up to 2gb should work. My guess is
somebody in 1964 thought it was a good idea.
The example is an artificial construct to illustrate the issue. So it also
illustrates that you can lie to
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:15:11 -0700, Bob Raicer wrote:
>Well, the statement from Peter Relson (and others) which is
>essentially:
>--
>LA R1,1 is exactly equivalent to LA R1,1(0). Just look at the
>generated object code.
>--
>is not totally true. It all depends upon which USINGs
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 7:56 AM Charles Mills wrote:
> Works better than it used to! It's good to ~2 billion now, right? Was only
> good to ~16 million when they coded it.
>
> I'm not confused on how LA works in AMODE 31, am I? I never use it for
> integer arithmetic anymore so I could be off
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 14:56, Charles Mills wrote:
> Works better than it used to! It's good to ~2 billion now, right? Was only
> good to ~16 million when they coded it.
>
> I'm not confused on how LA works in AMODE 31, am I? I never use it for
> integer arithmetic anymore so I could be off base
Works better than it used to! It's good to ~2 billion now, right? Was only good
to ~16 million when they coded it.
I'm not confused on how LA works in AMODE 31, am I? I never use it for integer
arithmetic anymore so I could be off base here.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM
15 matches
Mail list logo
