On May 24, 2012, at 10:05, Steve Comstock wrote: > On 5/24/2012 9:35 AM, Jon Perryman wrote: >> Has anyone from IBM endorsed this? POP's doesn't state that the PSW is >> decremented to cause re-execution of the instruction. >> >> Thanks, Jon. > > Why would the PSW need to be decremented? > c 'decremented' 'not incremented'.
-- gil
