I'd love to see that example! -Dave Rivers -
-- riv...@dignus.com Work: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote: > On 2013-09-30, at 08:04, Dave Rivers wrote: > >> Oh - I found Jonathan's subsequent reply… sorry to bother… >> > I see. I wonder how the design might have been different > if extended displacements had existed before HLASM introduced > the checks on overlapping usings. > > The check on overlapping usings at the point of declaration > is largely ineffective given the availability of extended > displacements. Alas, programmers have come to depend on > this (for 12-bit displacements) and it would be hard to take > it away. However, there's no problem reporting ambiguous > resolutions at the point of application. > > And I have a test case showing incorrect base-displacement > resolution (it should be unresolvable). The behavior is > arguably correct modulo 2**24 and modulo 2**31, but > inarguably incorrect modulo 2**64 or using non-congruential > arithmetic to any precision. I am little impressed by > arguments that HLASM is dedicated to 32-bit arithmetic; > generally, overflows are reported as errors. > > -- gil >
