At 8:20 PM -0400 on 8/21/10, John P. Baker wrote about Re: LARL vs. Literal Alignment:
Tony, A non-literal constant, if improperly aligned by the programmer, should be flagged in error. On the other hand, the placement of a literal constant is determined by the assembler. That being the case, I believe that it is reasonable for the assembler to provide correct alignment. John P. Baker
I agree. The Assembler already handles the case of X"12345" by treating it as if it were defined as X"012345". Why not just pad the literal the same way when used with a LARL to force alignment. IOW: Store the literal =X"123456" as =X"12345600" and =C"12345" as =C"12345 ". The literals would still be REFERENCED as their unpadded version but would be STORED aligned and padded. This would cause the same literal to be used for both LA and LARL (for example).
