END
Robert Ngan
CSC Financial Services Group
From: John Ehrman
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu
Date: 2012/06/14 13:01
Subject: Re: DS 0H
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Assembler List
Tom Marchant included this code fragment:
CNOP 2,8
RNAMEDS0CL6
ASID
On 2012-06-13 10:21, Pesce, Andy wrote:
I was always taught:
LABELEQU*
to distinguish a label. However, when I perform maintenance on a program
that someone else wrote with:
LABELDS 0H
I use that way. This keeps it standardized throughout the program as not to
confuse
the next
On 6/14/2012 9:52 AM, McKown, John wrote:
If that is the definition:
label:
is functionally identical to:
label DS 0H
It would be __simple__ to implement for users of FLOWASM. Just modify the
source input routine to change the statement to remove the tailing : and insert
DS 0H.
Change
From: "Frank Swarbrick"
EXIT:
RETURN (14,12),RC=0
or if this is too much asked, how about:
EXIT CNOP , no operands
Andreas F. Geissbuehler
AFG Consultants Inc.
http://www.afgc-inc.com/
Tom Marchant included this code fragment:
CNOP 2,8
RNAMEDS0CL6
ASID DSH
ADDR DSF
Since this is defining data fields, ORG may be more appropriate than CNOP
(which is intended for instruction streams):
ORG *,8,2
RNAMEDS0CL6
ASID DSH
ADDR
On 2012-06-14 10:41, Tom Marchant wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:19:37 -0400, J R wrote:
The whole point of such a construct would be to provide an
elegant alternative to the somewhat awkward "DS 0H" and
FSVO "elegant" and "awkward".
And haven't we all s
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:19:37 -0400, J R wrote:
>The whole point of such a construct would be to provide an
>elegant alternative to the somewhat awkward "DS 0H" and
FSVO "elegant" and "awkward".
--
Tom Marchant
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:24:39 -0700, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>Personally, I think the assembler should support a feature
>where it would align properly if you specify a label
>followed by a colon. For example
>
>EXIT:
>RETURN (14,12),RC=0
What is "align properly?" Just yesterday, I encount
No, you could use the colon-delimited label for data areas,
but it would only give halfword alignment.
The whole point of such a construct would be to provide an
elegant alternative to the somewhat awkward "DS 0H" and
the unreliable "EQU *" for the purpose of la
I worked with an ASSEMBLER in the 70s, which allowed free-form input, too.
And it hat statement separators (commas in this case, because the
instructions
always had only one operand, so the comma was not needed to separate the
operands).
This way it was possible to write more than one statement (=
If that is the definition:
label:
is functionally identical to:
labe DS 0H
It would be __simple__ to implement for users of FLOWASM. Just modify the
source input routine to change the statement to remove the tailing : and insert
DS 0H.
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative
On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:20, J R wrote:
>> The : on a label is an interesting idea. But I am unsure of what "align
>> properly" means. Do you mean to a halfword boundry?
> === Yes, it is an interesting idea and, IMHO, the only way to implement it
> would be exactly like a DS0H. It's only purpose
27;re using.
With many modern editors, placing the label on a separate
line provides no advantage in "expandability".
On Jun 14, 2012, at 09:24, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> Why funny? Seems to me that:
>
> EXITLABEL
>RETURN (14,12),RC=0
>
>
> is a lot simpl
l executable
machine instructions, so interleaved assembler instructions would have no
impact.
===
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:38:18 -0500
> From: john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
> Subject: Re: DS 0H
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>
> Well, just my personal oddity, I gues
Ref: Your note of Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:24:39 -0700
I like the colon notation (and I've suggested it myself) but I
don't like the idea of implying any specific properties such as
halfword alignment for a label coded with a colon.
As a more general solution, how about letting this notation
define a
John,
I agree I use
label DS 0H instead of label EQU *
To me its what you said personal style. A lot of code I feel is ...
I am maintaining some code written by a friend, now gone.(passed away), used to
work for a couple vendors,
he even used :
label LR R11,R12
Details, details! :-)
I don't know enough about it to give an educated answer (or guess).
Frank
>
> From: "McKown, John"
>To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:38 AM
>Subject: Re: DS 0H
>
>We
nce Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA
Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:25 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTS
Why funny? Seems to me that:
EXIT LABEL
RETURN (14,12),RC=0
is a lot simpler to understand than
EXIT DS 0H
RETURN (14,12),RC=0
Of course anyone who's programmed assembler for more than one day knows that
the DS 0H is for, but I prefer to have my code describe
to be
compelling. I can think of no reason, not even a poor one, to write
any of
| DS 0H
| DS 0F
| DS 0D
if not to obtain the corresponding alignment.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
Phil,
I learned Assembler on a Tech school in Indy, while a computer operator on a
s360/40 running DOS/VS 34
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:17 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> Jim Mulder wrote:
>> Let's not be too hard on grad students who grade assembler
>> projects to pa
On Jun 14, 2012, at 05:47, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r13/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.zos.r13.asma400%2Fic.htm
>
> Note 2:
>
> "Alignment can be forced to any boundary by a preceding DS or DC instruction
> with a zero duplication factor. This occurs whethe
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:29 PM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: DS 0H
>
> I though of doing that ver
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:26:13 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On 2012-06-13 13:13, Kirk Talman wrote:
>> Labels generated using DS 0H or DC 0H are always placed on a 1/2 wd
>> boundary.
>
>This appears to be the case even with PARM=NOALIGN. I'm astonished.
http://publib.
Jim Mulder wrote:
> Let's not be too hard on grad students who grade assembler
>projects to pay their tuition. I can tell you from experience that is
>pretty mind-numbing to spend all night reading and grading 60 assembler
programs that do the same thing.
Sure, that's no doubt the case.
It did
From: "Pesce, Andy"
Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012 3:21 AM
I was always taught:
LABELEQU*
to distinguish a label.
That really isn't a good idea for an instruction.
I though of doing that very thing. Do you find it objectionable?
>
> From: "McKown, John"
>To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:51 AM
>Subject: Re: DS 0H
>
>I remember one wag making a macro:
>> That is why using EQU * is risky for labels in
>> code. Murphy says probability of an S0C1 should be 50% but it is
>> usually higher.
But there is also a chance for a SOC1 in
Come_and_cause_a_SOC1_at_next_maint DS 0D
and this is even more surprising.
I had one the other day ("other" as in 2
On 2012-06-13 13:13, Kirk Talman wrote:
The assembler always places generated instructions on a 1/2 wd boundary.
Apparently.
Labels generated using DS 0H or DC 0H are always placed on a 1/2 wd
boundary.
This appears to be the case even with PARM=NOALIGN. I'm astonished.
At least
On 6/13/2012 2:36 PM, Jim Mulder wrote:
When we got our graded projects back, he got 45/50. I got 48/50. I lost
two
points for:
1) Using EQU * on labels (no DS 0H in SuperPet assembler)
2) Using the condition code as a return value from subroutines that were
testing for exactly one condition
>When we got our graded projects back, he got 45/50. I got 48/50. I lost
two
>points for:
>1) Using EQU * on labels (no DS 0H in SuperPet assembler)
>2) Using the condition code as a return value from subroutines that were
>testing for exactly one condition
>I pointed out to the
The assembler always places generated instructions on a 1/2 wd boundary.
Labels generated using DS 0H or DC 0H are always placed on a 1/2 wd
boundary. Labels generated using EQU * are placed at the current value of
the instruction counter. That is why using EQU * is risky for labels in
code
On 6/13/2012 11:32 AM, Rob van der Heij wrote:
What's this talk about labels in assembler programs? Don't we all do
structured assembler now? ;-)
Of course! But, subroutines still need labels.
***
* Subroutine to Accumulate FOOs
; [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: DS 0H
>
> What's this talk about labels in assembler programs? Don't we all do
> structured assembler now? ;-)
>
> -Rob
>
>
What's this talk about labels in assembler programs? Don't we all do
structured assembler now? ;-)
-Rob
I remember one wag making a macro:
MACRO
&LBL LABEL
&LBL DS 0H
MEND
Hum, might be amusing to name that COMEHERE or JUMPHERE .
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817)
I was always taught:
LABELEQU*
to distinguish a label. However, when I perform maintenance on a program
that someone else wrote with:
LABELDS 0H
I use that way. This keeps it standardized throughout the program as not to
confuse
the next person that does maintenance
On Jun 13, 2012, at 09:31, Doron Geva wrote:
>
> In my long life in MVS I do not remember I ever wrote code that not on a
> half word boundary (unless I used it for "BABEND").
>
> So can assembler issue a message (error) when an instruction is not on a
> half word boundary and old BRANCH (not r
Hi,
In my long life in MVS I do not remember I ever wrote code that not on a
half word boundary (unless I used it for "BABEND").
So can assembler issue a message (error) when an instruction is not on a
half word boundary and old BRANCH (not relative/long displacment BRANCH) is
also not a h
On 6/5/2012 4:51 AM, McKown, John wrote:
> My rule for most instructions is "place any required label on a separate
DS 0H
> as the preceding statement."
Yep. I was taught that as canon in my first job.
ObAnecdote: I had been writing 370 assembler for three or four years --
syst
At 05:46 AM 6/13/2012 +0200, Thomas Berg wrote:
>> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
>> Från: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
>> l...@listserv.uga.edu] För John Ehrman
>> Skickat: den 13 juni 2012 01:44
>> Till: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
> l...@listserv.uga.edu] För John Ehrman
> Skickat: den 13 juni 2012 01:44
> Till: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Ämne: Re: DS 0H
>
> Paul Gilmartin asked:
> >Does DC not re
Gil again:
>Do I remember correctly that it used to? Assembler VS?
>Assembler H?
Correct; all predecessors of HLASM, and HLASM before R3.
>I was told back then that (part of) the
>nominal value was used if padding was necessary for
>alignment?
The nominal value has no effect on padding.
>What
On 2012-06-12 17:43, John Ehrman wrote:
Paul Gilmartin asked:
Does DC not require a nominal value? I know it used to.
No nominal value needed if the duplication factor is zero.
Do I remember correctly that it used to? Assembler VS?
Assembler H? I was told back then that (part of) the
nomin
Paul Gilmartin asked:
>Does DC not require a nominal value? I know it used to.
No nominal value needed if the duplication factor is zero.
John Ehrman
On 2012-06-12 16:22, Edward Jaffe wrote:
***
AccumulateFoos DC 0H
Does DC not require a nominal value? I know it used to.
-- gil
On 6/5/2012 4:51 AM, McKown, John wrote:
My rule for most instructions is "place any required label on a separate DS 0H
as the preceding statement."
I use DC 0H rather than DS 0H, but that is a minor difference. Naturally, the
label is always on its own line. Otherwise the instruc
the "branch
label" in a preceding DS 0H statement.
At one time RELATED was forced on some macros. I used related=(father,son) or
stuff like that. One can place comments on a macro call.
--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - I
Ah! I have never use the RELATED= and so I didn't think of that reason. In that
case, I (still being weird) would consider that label to not be one for use in
a branch, but more as documentation. So I'd still have the "branch label" in a
preceding DS 0H statement.
--
n
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:52 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: DS 0H
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of glen
> herrmannsfeldt
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:24 PM
> To
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:24 PM
>> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>> Subject: DS 0H
>
>> Oh, yes, in the general case I agree. It just seemed unneeded
>> in this specific case.
>>
>> -- glen
>
> I agree, in this specific case, it is unneeded.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of glen
> herrmannsfeldt
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:24 PM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: DS 0H
> Oh, yes, in the general case
Glen,
>> Now that I write that, where is the STM 14,12,12(13)?
Could be a VSE main program.
In VSE you don't have to use std-linkage conventions for batch_mainlines
(but you can since 35 (or so) years). Old method: no linkage and at end
of work an SVC 0E (EOJ SVC).
Source for major headaches f
(snip, I wrote)
>> But, why the DS 0H instead of putting the label on the LM?
> I do the same thing for "labels" to "code". Why? Hum, I guess
> from reading the HASP code long ago. Also, it makes it
> easier to insert a new instruction at that logical point in
&
54 matches
Mail list logo
