Re: Baseless problem

I would like to thank you all for your suggestions and for this discussion. The reason why I will stay with my current logic (the large startup macro at the beginning, followed by the code, followed by the static definitions) is that there are several thousand existant programs which are not yet

Re: Baseless problem

On 4/12/2013 9:27 AM, Scott Ford wrote: This is a matter of style to me and experience level. I learned the data areas and liberals at the tail end of your code ...always worked for me. Doesn't mean that's the only way to to do II Yes, those d**n liberals sneak in everywhere My pet peeve are

Re: Baseless problem

Jon, >> Sorry if I offended anyone. That was not my intent. "NEED TO" was not meant >> to dictate what vendors must do. I was the one who . - It was my understanding (and English is not my native language) of what you posted and my curiosity (but certainly no offence felt here). I also thou

Re: Baseless problem

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:23:48 -0700, Jon Perryman wrote: >Tom is not saying you should change your coding style. Right. >You leave the data areas and literals at the end of >your source code. You add LOCTR statements into your >program to change generated machine code sequence. I would say "You

Re: Baseless problem

The quality of this discussion would be improved if a distinction between 1) the sequence of things in a source program and 2) the sequence of the corresponding entities in an assembled object program were made and observed with some care. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA

Re: Baseless problem

Jon,   I understand what Tom said no problemo Scott J Ford Software Engineer http://www.identityforge.com/   From: Jon Perryman To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 10:23 AM Subject: Re: Baseless problem Tom is not saying you

Re: Baseless problem

12, 2013 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Baseless problem On 4/12/2013 7:43 AM, Scott Ford wrote: > I totally agree..Tom I think one has to be open to different techniques > and try them It's a constant balance thing. When you have a technique that works for you, then there's

Re: Baseless problem

Tom is not saying you should change your coding style. You leave the data areas and literals at the end of your source code. You add LOCTR statements into your program to change generated machine code sequence. Jon Perryman - Original Message > From: Scott Ford > This is a matter of s

Re: Baseless problem

On 4/12/2013 7:43 AM, Scott Ford wrote: I totally agree..Tom I think one has to be open to different techniques and try them It's a constant balance thing. When you have a technique that works for you, then there's one less set of decisions you need to make, allowing you to focus on the cu

Re: Baseless problem

I totally agree..Tom I think one has to be open to different techniques and try them Scott ford www.identityforge.com Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand. - Chinese Proverb On Apr 12, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: > On Fri, 12 Apr

Re: Baseless problem

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:27:37 -0400, Scott Ford wrote: >This is a matter of style to me and experience level. I learned the data areas and liberals at the tail end of your code Right. If you *want* to put your constants and literals at the end, that's your business. But when someone says that t

Re: Baseless problem

This is a matter of style to me and experience level. I learned the data areas and liberals at the tail end of your code ...always worked for me. Doesn't mean that's the only way to to do II Scott ford www.identityforge.com Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'

Re: Baseless problem

Thomas, There are a lot of well versed , heavily experienced , aka heavy hitters, here on this listserv. Scott ford www.identityforge.com Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand. - Chinese Proverb On Apr 12, 2013, at 4:48 AM, Thomas Berg wrote: >

Re: Baseless problem

>> ... helpful to place an ad-con to the beginning of the module Sure - that takes the human factor out of calculating the correct start -- Martin Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE more at http://www.picapcpu.de

Re: Baseless problem

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:43:04 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: >Although the eyecatcher on SAVE (one byte length field >at EPA+4 followed by the message) seems to be kind of part of >the OS linkage conventions, The language conventions are defined in the Assembler Services Guide. An eyecatcher is not

Re: Baseless problem

We have found it very helpful to place an ad-con to the beginning of the module as the first thing in the "static area" (where the base reg points in a relative-addressing module). Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design

Re: Baseless problem

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:22:15 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: >I just expanded our local startup macro to support >baseless code areas. The standard startup macro especially for >main programs generates lots of instructions, that count for some >600 bytes (for example: error handling, buildung a LE en

Re: Baseless problem

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:11:19 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote: >On 4/11/2013 7:45 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> I believe LOCTR is fairly new. > >I am curious to know how Mike Shaw observed the >literals-physically-first technique implemented using 1976-era >assemblers. See pages 4 and 6 of the Assembler H L

Re: Baseless problem

Sometimes when I'm reading this list or IBM-MAIN I got a feeling like as I was listening to a historic science discussion where now and then Titus Livius and Thucydides pop in with anecdotes... :) (No offence please! I'm very impressed by all.) Regards Thomas Berg _

Re: Baseless problem

Sorry if I offended anyone. That was not my intent. "NEED TO" was not meant to dictate what vendors must do. Only that additional considerations exist that have an impact in a product environment. I just wanted Scott to consider the following now instead of after RTM. These possible problems cou

Re: Baseless problem

.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Baseless problem Scott, A couple more suggestions. 1. add 'ieabrcx enable' (or maybe it was snipped) 2. use larl 12,const instead of lr/ahi - it will make amode 64 conversion easier 3. limit the using range to avoid base regis

Re: Baseless problem

: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Baseless problem Bernd Oppolzer schrieb: > ... the OS linkage conventions, no other IBM language processor like > the PL/1 compiler or LE ever used it - I never understood this. LE  was a game changer. Prior

Re: Baseless problem

Bernd Oppolzer schrieb: ... the OS linkage conventions, no other IBM language processor like the PL/1 compiler or LE ever used it - I never understood this. LE was a game changer. Prior to LE almost all programs and modules adhered to __one and the same set__ of rules, including IBM access met

Re: Baseless problem

Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:13 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Baseless problem Guys: I wanted to say a BIG THX...I got my code to assemble still working thru design and coding issues..but hey what's life without a challenge or two or three... Heres my new cod

Re: Baseless problem

On 11/04/2013 20:23, Tony Harminc wrote: On 11 April 2013 10:32, Ed Jaffe wrote: The oldest assembler I ever used was IFOX00. ISTR, it did not have support for LOCTR but my memory could be faulty. It matches mine. It's worth remembering that ASMH predates IFOX00. (Well, as far as customer av

Re: Baseless problem

Subject: Re: Baseless problem On Apr 11, 2013, at 08:32, Ed Jaffe wrote: > > The oldest assembler I ever used was IFOX00. ISTR, it did not have > support for LOCTR but my memory could be faulty. > I believe LOCTR is fairly new. Some of my co-workers are old enough not to know about it

Re: Baseless problem

Reading again: there is no problem finding the (static) data, even if the USING point is not at the beginning of the module; if you have the load point of the module, which you get easily from CDE/XTLST, then you add the offsets of the variables from the CSECT. Oh, I see, you are VSE normally -

Re: Baseless problem

Although the eyecatcher on SAVE (one byte length field at EPA+4 followed by the message) seems to be kind of part of the OS linkage conventions, no other IBM language processor like the PL/1 compiler or LE ever used it - I never understood this. This discourages the use of SYSUDUMP for error diagn

Re: Baseless problem

Slightly different opinion on my side: I just expanded our local startup macro to support baseless code areas. The standard startup macro especially for main programs generates lots of instructions, that count for some 600 bytes (for example: error handling, buildung a LE environment etc.). So I

Re: Baseless problem

Tony Harminc wonders... I can only guess at the internal politics in play at the time that must have led to this project, when ASMH already existed and offered so much more. IBM's usual internal competition, I suppose, but in such a small subject area... AFAIR... core..! hmm "virtual memory", s

Re: Baseless problem

On 11 April 2013 10:32, Ed Jaffe wrote: > The oldest assembler I ever used was IFOX00. ISTR, it did not have > support for LOCTR but my memory could be faulty. It matches mine. It's worth remembering that ASMH predates IFOX00. (Well, as far as customer availability goes; I have no idea what wen

Re: Baseless problem

Mike Shaw wrote: Amen. I saw it first in code in 1976, with the eyecatcher preceded by a one-byte length field for the eyecatcher. That one byte length is used by the dump formatter to print the eyecatchers when formatting the save area chain. ... and the eyecatcher, the 3rd operand of SAVE reg

Re: Baseless problem

On 4/11/2013 7:37 AM, Martin Trübner wrote: While your points are okay- the "trick" to have the definitions right at the beginning of the module (with just a J in front) is something that makes sense for everyone. If you ever tried to calculate offset in a DOB-program (data only base) from the s

Re: Baseless problem

Ed Jaffe noted... >The oldest assembler I ever used was IFOX00. ISTR, it did not >have support for LOCTR but my memory could be faulty. I think your memory is correct. As I remember the IFOX assembler used basically the four-pass structure of Assembler F. It was developed and supported by a gro

Re: Baseless problem

On 4/11/2013 9:33 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: On 4/11/2013 7:55 AM, Mike Shaw wrote: You are of course correct; my reference was to eyecatcher placement after the initial instruction in the CSECT, which was a branch around the eyecatcher and its length byte. Ahhh. That's where the confusion comes from

Re: Baseless problem

___ From: John McKown To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Baseless problem He said that he did, IIRC. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Steve Comstock wrote: > On 4/11/2013 9:33 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: >> >

Re: Baseless problem

He said that he did, IIRC. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Steve Comstock wrote: > On 4/11/2013 9:33 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: >> > I wonder if the OP got his problem solved. > > -- > > Kind regards, > > -Steve Comstock > The Trainer's Friend, Inc. > > 303-355-2752 > http://www.trainersfriend.com

Re: Baseless problem

anklin, TN - Original Message - From: "Ed Jaffe" To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:11:19 AM Subject: Re: Baseless problem On 4/11/2013 7:45 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > I believe LOCTR is fairly new.  Some of my co-workers are old >

Re: Baseless problem

On 4/11/2013 7:55 AM, Mike Shaw wrote: You are of course correct; my reference was to eyecatcher placement after the initial instruction in the CSECT, which was a branch around the eyecatcher and its length byte. Ahhh. That's where the confusion comes from! :) See pages 48-50 of my 2011 SHARE

Re: Baseless problem

On 4/11/2013 7:45 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: I believe LOCTR is fairly new. Some of my co-workers are old enough not to know about it. Bitsavers would probably know, but why bother. Why bother? I am curious to know how Mike Shaw observed the literals-physically-first technique implemented usin

Re: Baseless problem

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: > > The oldest assembler I ever used was IFOX00. ISTR, it did not have > support for LOCTR but my memory could be faulty. > > You are of course correct; my reference was to eyecatcher placement after the initial

Re: Baseless problem

> The oldest assembler I ever used was IFOX00. ISTR, it did not have > support for LOCTR but my memory could be faulty. I cut my teeth on ACP. ACP assembler code included set symbols like &BG15 (possibly still there in zTPF). This naming is a relic of an Assembler that, AFAIK, pre-dated OS/360. e

Re: Baseless problem

On Apr 11, 2013, at 08:32, Ed Jaffe wrote: > > The oldest assembler I ever used was IFOX00. ISTR, it did not have > support for LOCTR but my memory could be faulty. > I believe LOCTR is fairly new. Some of my co-workers are old enough not to know about it. Bitsavers would probably know, but why b

Re: Baseless problem

On 4/11/2013 6:52 AM, Mike Shaw wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Steve Comstock wrote: ..Well, Ed's super sharp but I think that technique has been around a while. Amen. I saw it first in code in 1976, with the eyecatcher preceded by a one-byte length field for the eyecatcher. Tha

Re: Baseless problem

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Steve Comstock wrote: > ..Well, Ed's super sharp but I think that technique has been > around a while. > > Amen. I saw it first in code in 1976, with the eyecatcher preceded by a one-byte length field for the eyecatcher. That one byte length is used by the dump

Re: Baseless problem

From: "Steve Comstock" To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:47:33 AM Subject: Re: Baseless problem >Interesting how COBOL-ish that part is: data division >before procedure division. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”  (perhaps)

Re: Baseless problem

On 4/11/2013 5:37 AM, Martin Trübner wrote: Jon, Enough been said about the reason and the cause (and solutions) But who dictates techniques for vendors? While your points are okay- the "trick" to have the definitions right at the beginning of the module (with just a J in front) is something

Re: Baseless problem

On Apr 11, 2013, at 06:40, John McKown wrote: > I agree. It is very nice. Now to change my habits ... again. > LOCTR can alleviate that impact. > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Martin Trübner wrote: >> Jon, >> >> Enough been said about the reason and the cause (and solutions) >> >> But who d

Re: Baseless problem

I agree. It is very nice. Now to change my habits ... again. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Martin Trübner wrote: > Jon, > > Enough been said about the reason and the cause (and solutions) > > But who dictates techniques for vendors? > > While your points are okay- the "trick" to have the def

Re: Baseless problem

Jon, Enough been said about the reason and the cause (and solutions) But who dictates techniques for vendors? While your points are okay- the "trick" to have the definitions right at the beginning of the module  (with just a J in front) is something that makes sense for everyone. If you ever

Re: Baseless problem

As a software vendor, you will need to place the data at the beginning of your program because your abend diagnostics must still display the offset in the program and address the program eyecatcher. You are still using a base register but your executable code is outside the USING range for that bas

Re: Baseless problem

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford > Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2013 10:07 a.m. > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Baseless problem > > Guys, > > I am in the process of trying to understan

Re: Baseless problem

Scott, Ditch the GETMAIN/FREEMAIN macros for STORAGE OBTAIN and STORAGE RELEASE. The former use SVCs; whereas STORAGE uses a PC. This means that STORAGE can be use in more environments than the older macros. For instance, in an SRB or when in cross memory mode (when the SYSSTATE macro is used prop

Re: Baseless problem

[By the way, you set your Reply-to to yourself again, instead of to the list.] On 4/10/2013 4:06 PM, Scott Ford wrote: Guys, I am in the process of trying to understand and use baseless Assembler. I read through Ed's Jumpify Share presentation so i am trying to read and learn...I am not askin

Re: Baseless problem

Baseless for code, but you will need a base for data. I use @CODE LOCTR , @LITERAL LOCTR , LITERALSDC 0D'0' @CODE LOCTR , LARLRx,LITERALS USING LITERALS,Rx . . . . . @LITERAL LOCTR