I'm not entirely sure exactly what you want. But one thing that I do is use the 
Assembler parm MACHINE(architecture) to indicate my "highest level" instruction 
set. E.g. I use "//ASM EXEC PGM=ASMA90,PARM='MACHINE(ZSERIES-3)' to cause an 
assembler error if I were to use EXRL other instruction which would abend with 
an S0C1 on my z9BC.

http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/asmi1020/A.2.30

Or is it that you want some macros to use which would expand to an LLH, if at 
the proper minimal MACHINE level, or to a "equivalent" set of "lower MACHINE 
level" instructions? If you want to test this, look at &SYSOPT_OPTABLE at:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/asmr1020/7.10.28

I don't understand the comments about LLH. Is is LLH vs. LLGH? And you want, 
somehow, to determine which to use? LLH should use GR32 equates and LLGH should 
use GR64 equates.

--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT

Administrative Services Group

HealthMarkets®

9151 Boulevard 26 . N. Richland Hills . TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone .
[email protected] . www.HealthMarkets.com

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or 
proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact 
the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 
HealthMarkets® is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the 
insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance 
Company®, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA 
Life and Health Insurance Company.SM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Mullins
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:29 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Checking for "more restrictive" TYPECHECK(REGISTER)
> at assemble time
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been through the Fine Manual and the list archives, and
> according to my
> perusal this is not possible, but I'll throw it out there to
> the brain trust
> that is ASSEMBLER-LIST.
>
> I'm working on some instruction substitution macros to catch
> any slips of
> instructions like LLH into code that for one reason or
> another has to be
> assembled with MACHINE(ZS-2), as well as better MACHINEs. In
> one program, we
> are experimenting with TYPECHECK(REGISTER) by coding two sets
> of equates,
> one GR32 and one GR64. Our one hitch is that one of these macros -
> specifically one for LLH, uses one instruction that wants GR32 and one
> instruction that wants GR64. (I can see why instructions like
> IILL want GR64
> - I may not agree with it, but I can see the premise.)
>
> Our basic register equates are defined such that I can
> determine the GR32
> and GR64 equates from the register supplied. However, it
> would helpful to
> know if HLASM has gone into its "more restrictive" type
> checking (their
> words from Appendix N from the Programmer's Guide) to add this extra
> processing, or, if not, don't bother. There's no nice
> &SYSOPT_ flag for
> TYPECHECK, nor one saying "more restrictive" has kicked in.
> I realize that
> this may be difficult, nigh impossible, depending on where in
> the assembly
> process that "more restrictive" kicks in.
>
> To handle any register equates that don't conform to our
> naming standard
> (something like CBBASE EQU R10), the oft-requested ability to
> SETA to an EQU
> value inside a macro would be wonderful. But I'm not holding
> my breath on
> that one.
>
> Short of putting in a formal enhancement request for a
> &SYSOPT_ or other
> flag (or one for TYPECHECK and one for "more restrictive"
> checking), or
> waving at Sharuff and asking if he thinks this is a good
> idea, does anyone
> have any ideas?
>
> Cheers,
> Ray
>
> --
> M. Ray Mullins
> Roseville, CA, USA
> http://www.catherdersoftware.com/
>
> German is essentially a form of assembly language consisting
> entirely of far calls heavily accented with throaty guttural
> sounds. ---ilvi
> French is essentially German with messed-up pronunciation and
> spelling.  --Robert B Wilson
> English is essentially French converted to 7-bit ASCII.
> ---Christophe Pierret [for Alain LaBonté]
>
>

Reply via email to