Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

From: "Jonathan Scott" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 2:29 AM Ref: Your note of Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:12:08 -0600 Paul Gilmartin wrote: On 2018-04-25, at 09:51:06, Jonathan Scott wrote: > > ... As valid addresses cannot be negative, ... > Then HLASM should

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

On 2018-04-25, at 10:29:52, Jonathan Scott wrote: > >> Then HLASM should report an error on the case I posted: >> >>USING x'7F00',R2 >>LAR3,-256 >> >> ... rather than generating a mathematically incorrect base-displacement. > > I guess that is supposed to be LA

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

Ref: Your note of Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:12:08 -0600 Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On 2018-04-25, at 09:51:06, Jonathan Scott wrote: > > > > ... As valid addresses cannot be negative, ... > > > Then HLASM should report an error on the case I posted: > > USING x'7F00',R2 > LA

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

On 2018-04-24, at 20:55:29, Steve Smith wrote: > > ​Well, a bug should be reported via the regular channels.​ Since I don't > recall what you're referring to, I can only say that overflow is ignored by > design in addressing; from the birth of the architecture. > "the birth of the

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On 2018-04-23, at 01:41:27, Jonathan Scott wrote: > > A workaround for this specific case is to subtract some value from both > > addresses so that the matching offset lies within the 12-bit addressable > > range, for example as follows: > > > > USING

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

On 4/23/2018 12:41 AM, Jonathan Scott wrote: [snip] It would have been possible for HLASM to provide a simple fix for the 20-bit dependent USING case but we were holding it back because we felt that compatibility considerations could limit our options for a more general solution which was being

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

> This statement about 20-bit displacements appears to be incorrect. Any > attempt to specify an implicit "address" outside the range of a 12-bit > displacement generates msgASMA307E. I did some experimenting by adding LABELs to the usings and explicitly qualifying the operands to the OIY

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

We are aware of various limitations with 20-bit support in USING, including dependent USING, which were previously discussed on this list in 2012. A workaround for this specific case is to subtract some value from both addresses so that the matching offset lies within the 12-bit addressable

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

Ed, does it help (the HLASM) when you specify an end-address in the first USING Thus making sure hat the assembler is aware of it. It does know about the extra length when resolving the OIY - but that is maybe only a local mod to the code that resolves the ..Y> instructions. Martin

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

Doesn't the operand "Byte" need to be a register number, not a DS statement? From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU [1]] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 6:59 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU [2] Subject: Dependent USING Doe

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

On 4/22/2018 8:20 PM, Charles Mills wrote: or I would not have posted! Well, I've seen dumber questions. Haha! So have I, but this is *ME* we're talking about! Just saying... LOL -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

ent USING Does Not Work as Documented On 4/22/2018 7:45 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > And if you make the filler X'4000' rather than X'8000', then it assembles > without error? Haha! Indeed ... or I would not have posted! This post is, of course, a simplified illustration of the problem.

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

On 4/22/2018 7:45 PM, Charles Mills wrote: And if you make the filler X'4000' rather than X'8000', then it assembles without error? Haha! Indeed ... or I would not have posted! This post is, of course, a simplified illustration of the problem. The real world case that brought this to light

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented HLASM Mavens, https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.asma400/depuse.htm discusses dependent USINGs. The syntax is as follows: >>-+-+-USING-+-base-+-,a

Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

HLASM Mavens, https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.asma400/depuse.htm discusses dependent USINGs. The syntax is as follows: >>-+-+-USING-+-base-+-,address-><    +-label---+   '-(base-+--+-)-'