רָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Paul Gilmartin <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2024 10:44 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: SV: ASMA043E Previously defined
On 5/4/24 22:36:27, Ed Jaffe wrote:
...
But we had a register equates macro that came to conflict with
IATYREGS when we added JES3 support. Many JES3 headers used
IATYREGS conditioned on setting ofa GBLB.
All of the IATY macros have similar conditioning, thus allowing duplicate
(usual
On 5/1/2024 9:58 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
The desire to accept redefinition with identical value appears
to arise from undisciplined design and use of header files.
But we had a register equates macro that came to conflict with
IATYREGS when we added JES3 support. Many JES3 headers used
IATYRE
On 5/2/24 06:21:02, Tony Thigpen wrote:
What does the REXX compiler do with duplicate labels?
.
Compatibility with ANSI Rexx should require tolerating them.
Phil Smith III wrote on 5/1/24 1:00 PM:
That's bad.
That's WAD. Remember, the goal of Rexx was ease of use. Just sayinn'.
< .
Ear
Garza
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de maio de 2024 07:23
Para: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Assunto: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
OOREXX seems to ignore duplicates. Just tried this on a Mac:
#!/Applications/ooRexx5/bin/rexx
call m
exit
m: procedure
say "First m"
return
m
+++FANPAR0071W Duplicate label: Only first occurrence on line n used
> What does the REXX compiler do with duplicate labels?
>
> Tony Thigpen
Jonathan Scott, HLASM
IBM Hursley, UK
What does the REXX compiler do with duplicate labels?
Tony Thigpen
Phil Smith III wrote on 5/1/24 1:00 PM:
Paul Gilmartin wrote, re Rexx being fine with duplicate labels:
That's bad.
That's WAD. Remember, the goal of Rexx was ease of use. Just sayin'.
OOREXX seems to ignore duplicates. Just tried this on a Mac:
#!/Applications/ooRexx5/bin/rexx
call m
exit
m: procedure
say "First m"
return
m: procedure
say "Second m"
return
Running it produces:
$./testdup.rex
First m
יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 5:53 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
No, it is a feature of *some* interpreters. Others transla
t: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
ATTENTION: External Email – Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests
for Login Information.
Paul Gilmartin wrote, re Rexx being fine with duplicate labels:
>That's bad.
That's WAD. Remember, the goal of Rexx was ease of use. Just sayin
, 2024 1:25 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
Ease of bizarre inscrutable errors is not the same as ease of use. Just
sayin' ;-)
WAD just means it was a bad design.
sas
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 7:00 PM Phil Smith III wrote:
> Paul G
ERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Phil Smith III
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
Paul Gilmartin wrote, re Rexx being fine with duplicate labels:
>That's bad.
That's WAD. Remember, the goal of Rexx was ease of use. Just sayin'.
erhaps at oh-dark-thirty at a customer site.
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Phil Smith III
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>
We used to call them "undocumented features." 😊
Bill Hitefield
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 1:45 PM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ASMA04
Smith III
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
Paul Gilmartin wrote, re Rexx being fine with duplicate labels:
>That's bad.
That's WAD. Remember, the goal of Rexx was ease of use. Just sayin'.
One place I worked long ago used BAD: Broken as Designed.
Steve Thompson
On 5/1/2024 1:25 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Ease of bizarre inscrutable errors is not the same as ease of use. Just
sayin' ;-)
WAD just means it was a bad design.
sas
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 7:00 PM Phil Smith III wrote:
Ease of bizarre inscrutable errors is not the same as ease of use. Just
sayin' ;-)
WAD just means it was a bad design.
sas
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 7:00 PM Phil Smith III wrote:
> Paul Gilmartin wrote, re Rexx being fine with duplicate labels:
> >That's bad.
>
> That's WAD. Remember, the goal o
Subsequent posts suggest you divined his intent better than I did. I know
Joao isn't a native speaker, and allow for that, but sometimes it doesn't
work.
sas
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 6:59 PM Phil Smith III wrote:
> Steve Smith wrote:
> >It seems perfectly clear to me that the OP was asking why i
Paul Gilmartin wrote, re Rexx being fine with duplicate labels:
>That's bad.
That's WAD. Remember, the goal of Rexx was ease of use. Just sayin'.
Steve Smith wrote:
>It seems perfectly clear to me that the OP was asking why in this
>particular example, it only produced RC=4, instead of the expected RC=8.
>So far, no response seems to be relevant, other than the request for an
>example.
Oh. I did not get that at all; I took it as "I think t
On 5/1/24 09:53:45, Willy Jensen wrote:
REXX is fine with the same label occurring multiple times, it just picks the
first.
.
That's bad.
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Charles Mills
Sendt: 1. maj 2024 17:47
I don't think that anyone has mentioned this point but I think that all
lan
One thing that has been requested is for the assembler to allow
duplicate EQU definitions provided that the value is the same.
However, this is not difficult to implement as a macro, for
example as follows:
Macro Define a value, tolerating duplicate
&name#equ &val
: IBM Mainframe Assembler List På vegne af
Charles Mills
Sendt: 1. maj 2024 17:47
Til: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Emne: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
I don't think that anyone has mentioned this point but I think that all
languages with which I am familiar (and that supp
:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of João Reginato
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 8:14 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
Just for comodity and I can't see a reason for this error.
Eventually I use to remember new updates with the ac
Just for comodity and I can't see a reason for this error.
Eventually I use to remember new updates with the actual date or my name
for example. And using the column one for that is easier.
Em qua., 1 de mai. de 2024, 08:09, Steve Smith escreveu:
> OK, that could be done. It would potentially g
On 4/30/24 15:55:55, João Reginato wrote:
.
The message “ASMA043E Previously defined Symbol” is always issued when an
already defined field is redefined, even if it is not referenced,
making the compiler end with error (return code 8).
.
Does "the compiler" (which?) improperl
Simple? It's easy for you to say that without knowing how the assembler works.
You can't see that it would be additional code?
You haven't answered the questions as to why your program dies that.
Feel free to submit an idea to change the behavior. Be sure to include a
business justification. Don't
Joao,
From a theoretical standpoint you are probably right.
A duplicate definition could be flagged as a warning,
and an error message could be issued only when referencing it.
But this would not work for labels that are externalized.
Also, when producing/using Adata it would cause confusion.
An
OK, that could be done. It would potentially generate far more error
messages for essentially one error. I see no reason or value in that
approach. I also think most programmers would strongly object.
Do you have some reason for needing to define duplicate, yet unreferenced
symbols?
sas
On We
I can't see it as an additional code if it is already checking the
duplicates. It could only show an error where/when/if the duplicated field
is referenced. Simple
Em qua., 1 de mai. de 2024, 07:20, Steve Smith escreveu:
> Because it's an error whether referenced or not. Why should the assembl
Because it's an error whether referenced or not. Why should the assembler
add additional code to check that symbol isn't referenced?
I don't understand your last statement.
sas
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 11:43 AM João Reginato wrote:
> Ok, I understand your point of view. But why show the duplic
-Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:
> ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of João Reginato
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 7:28 PM
> > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: RES: ASMA043E Previously defined sy
ler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of João Reginato
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 7:28 PM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: RES: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
> Importance: Low
>
> It´s very simple:
>
> XMVC A,B
> X
João Reginato wrote:
>It´s very simple:
>X MVC A,B
>X MVC B,A
>Where X is duplicated but never referenced
So why is it there? That isnt how assembler worksits not based on
referenced. If youre not going to reference the label, dont define it.
Is this something generated by a macro
f Of João Reginato
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 7:28 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: RES: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
Importance: Low
It´s very simple:
XMVC A,B
XMVC B,A
Where X is duplicated but never referenced
-Mensagem original-
De: Steve Thompson
.com; ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Assunto: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol
I suggest you show us a snippet of code so we can see how you are
re-defining a variable/symbol.
Steve Thompson
On 4/30/2024 5:55 PM, João Reginato wrote:
Hi
The message “ASMA043E Previously defined Symb
symbol
I suggest you show us a snippet of code so we can see how you are
re-defining a variable/symbol.
Steve Thompson
On 4/30/2024 5:55 PM, João Reginato wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> The message “ASMA043E Previously defined Symbol” is always issued when an
> already defined field is red
I suggest you show us a snippet of code so we can see how you are
re-defining a variable/symbol.
Steve Thompson
On 4/30/2024 5:55 PM, João Reginato wrote:
Hi
The message “ASMA043E Previously defined Symbol” is always issued when an
already defined field is redefined, even if it is not
Hi
The message ASMA043E Previously defined Symbol is always issued when an
already defined field is redefined, even if it is not referenced,
making the compiler end with error (return code 8).
I see this situation as it was just a warning issue (with return code 4).
Is there a reason for
39 matches
Mail list logo
