(snip, I wrote) >> But, why the DS 0H instead of putting the label on the LM?
> I do the same thing for "labels" to "code". Why? Hum, I guess > from reading the HASP code long ago. Also, it makes it > easier to insert a new instruction at that logical point in > the program without remembering to remove the label from the > old instruction and move it to the new one. That I don't disagree with, but what is the probability of wanted to add new code between the B and the LM? I suppose one still has over 4000 bytes of code (not counting data references) before one needs the next base register, but, really, what else would you want to do there? Now that I write that, where is the STM 14,12,12(13)? Still, that isn't the kind of change I would plan ahead for. At the time, I was considering differences between compiler generated and human generated code. I suppose that one isn't a very good test, though. > In addition, if you use SUPERC to compare the two sources > (before & after), then the old instruction does not show > up an a "delete" and "add". Only the new inst ruction shows up > as an "add". Remember the days of IEBUPDTE to update source. > Fewer updated cards means fewer mistakes. Oh, yes, in the general case I agree. It just seemed unneeded in this specific case. -- glen
