On 02/23/2017 10:09 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On 2017-02-23, at 07:57, Steve Thompson wrote:
Ah, I see why you all are having a problem with this.
And me, being an old ALC programmer, this is intuitively obvious. In fact,
there are several changes to HLASM that I disagreed with, because they then
caused programs I had written earlier to start getting informative messages,
where they didn't get them before.
Informative? Or Warning? Do you then disagree with warnings on
multiple base-displacement resolutions?
I sometimes run into this, and can't figure out why the assembler
even issued the message. But when it happens I do verify that it
is using the correct base. This is actually a problem going back
to the "F" Assembler.
My gripe is, I removed a "," from the end of a line on purpose,
and because it is marked as continuing, I get a warning. That
didn't use to happen. This was done to test certain expansions of
Macros, or not pick up a debugging keyword (on the last line of
the continuation).
Yeah, I'm that old. And somewhere I still have the manuals for
that level of ASM so I can figure out certain things about
conditional assembly when I run into confusion because the
HLASM's manuals don't describe things as well as it used to be
done (and Dr. Ehrmann and I had discussed this at one point).
So, you want the immediate area to be filled with a replication. But that means
that the assembler now must pay attention to the replication value -- which it
may not know until after the instruction has to be generated, and ensure that
it does not exceed the immediate are of the instruction.
Any self-defining term ought to be acceptable as an immediate operand.
But can a self-defining term contain a replication factor?
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:18:38 -0500, Melvyn Maltz wrote:
Immediate operands won't accept a duplication factor...why not ?
Can't find a reason in the HLASM manual
Try these...
AHI R1,2X'FF'
AHI R1,X'FFFF'
AHI R1,-1
How do you (and HLASM) feel about?:
AHI R1,X'00FFFF'
-- gil
