On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:46:35 +0200 Martin Truebner <[email protected]> wrote:
:>I am an ignorant VSE person- The fact that SYSSTATE is explained to VSE :>people in only 1 page and in MVS in 17 pages made me wonder.... :>>> ...SYSSTATE ...and you have the same intent expressed. :>and this made me believe that I was right in ignoring that macro :>(which covers intent but in no way leaves space for real life) and :>covered all bases in my code and not rely on it. :>I had one case where the generated code had a LAE instead of an LA with :>SYSSTATE ...AR... :>Come on, can't they read POP- LAE is the same as an LA in non AR :>mode. Not the same - the associated AR is changed. May astonish a calling program who calls a subroutine that is all PRIMARY mode and thus does not save ARs. :>....in a few words: sorry Jim, I see no point in testing for the AMODE :>at assembly time. Depends on whether you wish to unexpectedly mess with the top halves of GRs and the ARs. -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.
