I'm creating another external assembler REXX function, but this
time to provide a REXX-friendly interface to an IBM (z/VSE) system utility
-- which has user exits that I have chosen to hook back to my assembler
program. In other words, the exit routines are "internal" to my assembler
p
Subject: Internal Exit Routine Handling
I'm creating another external assembler REXX function, but this
time to provide a REXX-friendly interface to an IBM (z/VSE) system utility
-- which has user exits that I have chosen to hook back to my assembler
program. In other words, the exit rou
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 03:14:01 PM:
> Read up on the DROP pseudo-op.
I've used it before. But I can't use it in this case because, as
I said:
> But since I am sharing data and routines, in my base program,
> then the exit routines need addressability to tho
op copy Shmuels style:
read also about limiting the range of a USING
Martin
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 04:13:09 PM:
> read also about limiting the range of a USING
OK, that definitely sounds useful. Didn't know that could be
done. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Dave Clark
--
int.ext: 91078
direct: (937) 531-6378
home: (937) 751-3300
Winsuppl
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 03:14:01 PM:
> Read up on the DROP pseudo-op.
I've used it before. But I can't use it in this case because, as
I said:
> But since I am sharing data and ro
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 04:31:21 PM:
> If in the mainline code you need the address of any exit routine,
> use “L Rx,=A(exit name)” rather than simply “LA Rx,exitname”.
I get the rest of what you said. But could you explain why the
above is needed? It seem
t: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 03:14:01 PM:
> Read up on the DROP pseudo-op.
I've used it before. But I can't use it in this case because, as
I said:
> But since I am sharing data and routines, in my base pr
Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Dave Clark
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:48 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 04:31:21 PM:
> If in the mainline code you need the addr
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 04:49:37 PM:
> I don't understand. The USING is associated with the location in the
> source where you code it, not with the location in the source where
> you define the data.
Perhaps my understanding of it is flawed or limited, and I
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 04:59:34 PM:
> If your exit routine follows the mainline, then LA or LAY should
> work; you don't need the addcon at all.
Yes, the exit routines are in the same CSECT following the rest of
the mainline code -- and the entire CSECT is
ל חַי
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Dave Clark
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 5:03 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 04:49:3
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 15:03, Dave Clark wrote:
[...]
> LIBR RXLIBRIO - REXX SUBROUTINE FOR LIBR CALL INTERFACE Page
> 40
> Active Usings: ARXEXTE,R9 SHVBLOCK,R10 RXLIBRIO,R11 DYNASTOR,R13
> [...]
> R:C 005C82512 USING IPTEXIT,R12
> ESTABLISH
behalf
of Dave Clark
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 5:08 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 04:59:34 PM:
> If your exit routine follows the mainline, then LA or LAY should
> work; yo
@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/08/2023 04:31:21 PM:
> If in the mainline code you need the address of any exit routine,
> use “L Rx,=A(exit name)” rather than simply “LA Rx,exitname”.
I get the rest of wha
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 17:13, Farley, Peter <
0dc9d8785c29-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote:
> The “why” of using adcons instead of direct instruction reference with my
> suggested USING setup:
>
> Because the mainline USING that I suggested limits the use of R11 to just
> the mainline cod
List on behalf
of Farley, Peter <0dc9d8785c29-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 5:13 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
The “why” of using adcons instead of direct instruction reference with my
suggested
Assembler List On Behalf
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 5:25 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 17:13, Farley, Peter <
0dc9d8785c29-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote:
> The “why” of usi
Now you are telling the assembler exactly which register to use for which
labels in the program.
Peter
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Farley, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 5:57 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
Oops
As Tony mentioned, you can use LARL.
You can also use BRAS (Branch Relative and Save) to call the subroutine.
No base register is needed to reference storage for these, or any of the other
relative instructions.
--
Tom Marchant
חַי
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Tom Marchant <00a69b48f3bb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 6:41 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
A
On 11/9/2023 4:06 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
The relative instructions are invaluable for large csects, but in this case I
believe that they are overkill. All he needs is the judicious placement of DROP.
OTOH, they are definitely instructions worth his time to learn.
In addition to extending t
ל חַי
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Ed Jaffe
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 11:27 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Exit Routine Handling
On 11/9/2023 4:06 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> The relative instructions are invaluable for large cse
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/09/2023 11:27:20 AM:
> IMHO, relative branch use is a "best practice" in all situations. I
> *never* use a based branch if an equivalent relative branch will
suffice...
I've been coding based-branches since 1980 and never moved on to
the new
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Dave Clark
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 12:16 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Based vs. Relative (was: Internal Exit Routine Handling)
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/09/2023 11:27:20 AM:
> IMHO, relati
ainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Dave Clark
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 9:17 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Based vs. Relative (was: Internal Exit Routine Handling)
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/09/2023 1
and delete the original message from your
mail system.
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Charles Mills
Sent: November 9, 2023 12:33
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Based vs. Relative (was: Internal Exit Routine Handling)
Princi
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/09/2023 12:33:58 PM:
> Principles is your friend!
Yes, I will be doing some reading. But a few quick answers are
helpful.
> But in addition to up to 4K, you can actually
> do up to +/- 65K.
OK, so the "normal" relative jump is the si
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/09/2023 12:53:26 PM:
> I would personally find
> If condition
> Then
> 200 lines of code
> Else
> 150 lines of code
> End-if
> hard to navigate.
I don't disagree with you. But if you allow someone to do a
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/09/2023 12:54:36 PM:
> > But in addition to up to 4K, you can actually
> > do up to +/- 65K.
> OK, so the "normal" relative jump is the signed, 16-bit variety
> mentioned (15-bit relative target with left-most bit as the direction).
> How is th
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:54:36 -0500, Dave Clark wrote:
>"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
>11/09/2023 12:33:58 PM:
>> Principles is your friend!
>
>Yes, I will be doing some reading. But a few quick answers are
>helpful.
>
Please do. It isn't that hard to look up one instruction (BR
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Dave Clark
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 12:54 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Based vs. Relative (was: Internal Exit Routine Handling)
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
11/09/2023 12:33:58 PM:
&g
You forgot the 4th, 20-bit based signed displacement (Y & G-suffixed
instructions). Just to have a chance at misremembering, I think that's
about +/- half a MB.
sas
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 1:33 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> There are only three sizes:
>
> legacy, 12 bits, unsigned, 4 Ki byts
> re
ׂרָאֵל חַי
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Steve Smith
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 12:22 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Based vs. Relative (was: Internal Exit Routine Handling)
You forgot the 4th, 20-bit based signed di
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
