Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction.

2012-11-27 Thread McKown, John
Company.SM -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 4:21 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction. On Mon, 26 Nov

Stupid? though on a new execute instruction.

2012-11-26 Thread McKown, John
It's the holiday season. So be nice. There currently exist 2 execute variants. The old base+displacement and the new relative. Now that we have 64 bit registers, why not have an RR instruction where the first register the modifying value but the second register contains the actual instruction

Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction.

2012-11-26 Thread Robert Ngan
on a new execute instruction. Sent by:IBM Mainframe Assembler List ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu It's the holiday season. So be nice. There currently exist 2 execute variants. The old base+displacement and the new relative. Now that we have 64 bit registers, why not have an RR

Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction.

2012-11-26 Thread McKown, John
and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Ngan Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 4:01 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction

Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction.

2012-11-26 Thread John P. Baker
@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction. It's the holiday season. So be nice. There currently exist 2 execute variants. The old base+displacement and the new relative. Now that we have 64 bit registers, why not have an RR instruction where the first register the modifying value

Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction.

2012-11-26 Thread Robert Ngan
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu Date: 2012/11/26 16:21 Subject:Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction. Sent by:IBM Mainframe Assembler List ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu OK, bad example. I'm stuck on a z9BC, likely until the end

Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction.

2012-11-26 Thread John P. Baker
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 7:43 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction. Very nice. I still kind of like the idea

Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction.

2012-11-26 Thread John P. Baker
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 5:21 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Stupid? though on a new execute instruction. What about simply Jc *+2/4/6 does