On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 09:52, Ed Jaffe wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 1:19 AM, Martin Trübner wrote:
> >
> > The determination whether jumpable or no is done in a SETC exit and
> > not in the macro. This made the determination easier.
>
> That is very, Very, VERY cool! ijs...
>
Maybe it could use an AI.
On 11/10/2023 1:19 AM, Martin Trübner wrote:
The determination whether jumpable or no is done in a SETC exit and
not in the macro. This made the determination easier.
That is very, Very, VERY cool! ijs...
--
Phoenix Software International
Edward E. Jaffe
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo,
Ah, right. 20-bit displacements don't apply to branching instructions.
I've never seen any use of short or long relative addresses that wasn't
consistent, i.e. signed offset in halfwords.
sas
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 8:13 AM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I'm not aware of any branch instructions with
I'm not aware of any branch instructions with a 20-bit offset. For LAY the
offset is signed, giving +/- 512 Mi bytes.
I haven't checked, but I believe that all of the relative instructions use
signed offsets.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
__
And it is even better than the IBM version in one respect:
It identifies the case of B *+4+4*(N'operands_of_whatever) as
jumpable (is that a proper word?). This is something IBMs version does
not catch (at least it did, when I looked about 18 years ago).
The determination whether jumpabl
