Sorry, to make my posting more precise, the wording in the parantheses
should be:
(nonzero function byte RESULTING FROM the last byte of the string to be
tested)
even if my english is not perfect, because I'm no native english speaker
(same as
Martin), we should take care about the meaning of our writing :-)
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 20.10.2013 22:31, schrieb Bernd Oppolzer:
Martin,
I believe that the RC = 2 was found to be not necessary in the case of
TRTE,
because this case (nonzero function byte in the last byte of the
string to be tested)
can be examined easily by looking at the remaining length in R1 + 1
after RC = 1
(when TRTE finds a nonzero function byte).
Anyway, the PoOp says:
Resulting Condition Code:
0 Entire first operand processed without selecting
a nonzero function code
1 Nonzero function code selected
2 --
3 CPU-determined number of bytes processed
so there is no RC = 2 after TRTE.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 20.10.2013 16:07, schrieb Martin Truebner:
Does anyone have insights (or ideas) why CC 2 (xH) was omitted from
TRTE.
It is there in TRT and it does come handy when determine if there is a
remainder to process after the special-char was found.
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at http://www.picapcpu.de
--
Bernd Oppolzer
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Oppolzer-Informatik
* Dipl. Inf. Bernd Oppolzer
Bärenhofstraße 23
70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tel.: +49 711 2272522
priv.: +49 711 7949590
eMail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Für Umsatzsteuerzwecke:
SteuerNr.: 97 076 / 29921
USt-ID-Nr.: DE 147 700 393
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jubiläumsjahr 2013:
30 Jahre Oppolzer-Informatik
