Very cool. I like the AL.4(...) very much.
I don't know much about DIAG.
You write:
some Diags use only Rx and not Ry
Does this mean that there should be variants of DIAG where some
of the parameters (&RY or &DISP) could be omitted? If so, should the
macro take care of such omissions?
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 21.12.2013 22:13, schrieb Mark Boonie:
Stepping back from everything that's already been suggested, when I wrote
this from scratch, I used something simpler:
MACRO ,
&LABEL DIAG &RX,&RY,&DISP
&LABEL DC 0H,X'83',AL.4(&RX,&RY),Y(&DISP)
MEND ,
The overwriting of another instruction seems unneccesarily complex. I'm
guessing that the intent was to allow the assembler to produce register
cross-reference entries, but some Diags use only Rx and not Ry, some use an
implied Rx+1 and Ry+1, etc., which means that (the lack of) any
cross-reference entries can't be trusted anyway. If the overwriting was
done for another reason, hopefully someone will let me know.
- mb
IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> wrote on
12/21/2013 03:11:29 PM:
