To make it IBM-like, you'd have to call it the "Jumpify Facility". :-)
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Relson" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:21 AM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Base registers
My quibble with the terms being bandied about is that neither "unbased" nor "baseless" is factually correct for a large percentage of modules that use relative branches. They have a "base" to their static data (and, yes, sometimes that "base" is not persistent and is created only when needed). They just do not tend to need a base for their code (aside from when they use macros that have not been "jumpified"). If you think of the addressablity to code as being via "codereg" they have been de-codereg'd (not a pleasing term, of course). I think everyone these days understands what someone means when they use the non-word "jumpify". Is more than that needed? Creating more terminology just for the sake of doing so seems unwieldy (and perhaps it could be said "IBM-like"). Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design
