Sorry, LLILF only load bits 32 to 63, not 0 to 63. So, LLILF meets your requirement to load only 32 bits/
Chris Blaicher Technical Architect Mainframe Development Syncsort Incorporated 2 Blue Hill Plaza #1563, Pearl River, NY 10965 P: 201-930-8234 | M: 512-627-3803 E: cblaic...@syncsort.com www.syncsort.com CONNECTING BIG IRON TO BIG DATA -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 7:25 PM To: MVS List Server 2 <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> Subject: Re: curious: MVHI vs XC to "zero" a halfword. LGFI and LLILF load 64 bits. As do LGF and LLGF. But what corresponds to L, an immediate instruction to load only 32 bits? AFI, CFI work on 32-bits (vs. AGFI, CGFI). Yet no LFI. Well, the answer is IILF, as the architecture guys are loath to have two instructions that do the same thing. Although HLASM could make LFI an alias for IILF, and saved me the time I spent looking for it. sas On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Blaicher, Christopher Y. < cblaic...@syncsort.com> wrote: > It's called LLILF. There is also LLIHF to load the high 32 bits of > the register. Also see LGFI. > > Chris Blaicher > Technical Architect > Mainframe Development > Syncsort Incorporated > 2 Blue Hill Plaza #1563, Pearl River, NY 10965 > > P: 201-930-8234 | M: 512-627-3803 > E: cblaic...@syncsort.com > > www.syncsort.com > > CONNECTING BIG IRON TO BIG DATA > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List > [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Steve Smith > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 3:36 PM > To: MVS List Server 2 <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> > Subject: Re: curious: MVHI vs XC to "zero" a halfword. > > Just to be clear, MVHI expands a source half-word to set a full-word. > MVHHI is for half-word targets, and what MVGHI does is left as an > exercise for the student. Regardless, sure seems like MVFHI would > have made more sense as the first's name. > > Aside: if you don't already know, guess what the MY instruction does. > Then look it up. > And 1 more: Why is there no LFI instruction? > > sas > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Gary Weinhold <weinh...@dkl.com> wrote: > > > There`s a little more work for XC, even optimized, than for MVHI, I > > think, since it has two addresses to translate. Of course that > > could be optimized, too, and perhaps both are done within a cycle > > anyway. My experience, based on software development, is that at > > some point optimization slows down the normal path so much it`s no > > longer a net benefit. > > > > Gary Weinhold > > Senior Application Architect > > > > DATAKINETICS | Data Performance & Optimization > > > > Phone: +1.613.523.5500 x216<tel:+1.613.523.5500%20x216> > > Email: weinh...@dkl.com<mailto:weinh...@dkl.com> > > > > [http://www.dkl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dkl_logo.png]< > > http://www.dkl.com/> > > > > Visit us online at www.DKL.com<http://www.dkl.com/> > > > > [http://www.dkl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/banner.png]<h > > ttp://www.dkl.com/mailsig> > > > > E-mail Notification: The information contained in this email and any > > attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other > > intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended > > recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this > > information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or > > telephone and delete the original message from your mail system. > > > > > > > > __________ > > On 2017-01-12 10:10, John McKown wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Martin Truebner > > <mar...@pi-sysprog.de > > ><mailto:mar...@pi-sysprog.de> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > John, > > > > i have no clue about the hardware- > > > > one thing: the XC can only be used to clear it- the MVHI could be > > used to create any memory-configuration possible into the half-word- so... > > > > The stmt ".... product's documentation said it was supported on a z9" > > is correct if it continues with > > > > ... "---when compiled with the right archlvl" > > > > just saying > > > > > > > > > > True. Just continuing in my "research", I noticed that the program > > in question _was_ compiled on z/OS 2.2 (we are z/OS 1.12!) and > > _appears_ to be written in C (just from looking at some of the stuff > > inside it such as seeing "sprintf"). Interestingly, the z/OS 2.2 C > > compiler does support > > ARCH(7) for the z9. But ARCH(8) is the default starting with z/OS 2.2. > > But the TARGET, to set the LE level, only goes "down" to z/OS 1.13 > > (it was 1.12 in 2.1 because I remember when I used C on a 2.1 system > > which is now 2.2). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin Trübner; everything around "PoOps of z/arch" > > > > > > -- > sas > -- sas
