> but there is none to be made for doing so in > writing even a new single RSECT.
How about this reason. We have several customers running our software that are on pre-MP3000 machines that don't even support relative instructions. They still pay us for support and that includes software upgrades. Other vendors may not care about existing customers, but we do. Almost all of these customers also can't upgrade their VSE. They fell into the ESL trap with IBM many years ago and now can't get their budget dollars back to get current because of the IBM monthly charges. As faithful customers for many years, we do not want to kick them while they are down just so we can do 'fancier' code. Tony Thigpen -----Original Message ----- From: John Gilmore Sent: 06/02/2012 06:57 PM
David Bond writes: <begin extract> But really, for over 15 years base registers are only required for data areas. Just use LA, LAY or LARL to address the first data item and base the USING from there. Also switch from branches (Bc, BAS, BCT...) to jumps (Jc, JAS, JCT...). </end extract> Indeed! There is a case--a strong one--for using traditional methods in patching old code; but there is none to be made for doing so in writing even a new single RSECT. The two-base-register case for something just a bit over 4096 bytes in length is a particularly egregious, hidebound use of obsolete technology. Let's stop it. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
