LLH comes in at MACHINE(ZS-3), so the macro substitutes for LLH if assembled
with MACHINE(ZS-2) and earlier. (O' is a nice addition.)
I'm using a combination of LH and IILH (not IILL, as I wrote) to properly
reflect the operation of LLH. LH wants GR32, IILH wants GR64. I'm working
around that if the first operand is one of our register equates, but if
someone slips something like LLH MYREG,ASCBASID where MYREG is tagged as GR,
or not tagged at all, and "more restrictive" is not in effect, I'd like to
bypass the code that gets the proper GR32 and GR64 EQUs.
If "more restrictive" is in effect and they're using GR for their own
equate, then screw 'em, let them deal with the ASMA323Ws. :)
It's not a life-or-death situation. Let me just say that in what we've
currently got now in our macro set, it would be nice to know when HLASM is
in "more restrictive" mode.
On 2012-06-19 09:57, McKown, John wrote:
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]
--
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]
