ASMA320W is imho, a total wimp-out on IBM's behalf. There'd be less confusion if this was flagged as an *error*, which it is. It may sometimes generate what the user wants, but the user didn't specify it correctly.
And the case where the assembler issues this for BR instructions is egregiously wrong. sas On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote: > On 2017-03-01, at 00:03, John Dravnieks wrote: > > > > So if you code AHI 1,65535 then HLASM will give you this > > > > 000000 A71A FFFF 0FFFF 2 ahi 1,65535 > > ** ASMA320W Immediate field operand may have incorrect sign or magnitude > > > Should the Reference specify the effect of using an out-of-range > operand? I can imagine two plausible interpretations: > o The rightmost bits matching the size of the instruction are used; > others are discarded (-1, as above). > o The algebraically nearest value is used (32767, in this case) > > Or is it sufficient to rely on a blanket statement (if one exists) > that when warnings are ignored or suppressed the results are > unpredictable? > > > (To me this is clearly an error, but I vaguely recall that there was some > > resistance to making this message an error.) > > > Heck, I even think division by zero should be an error. I know > it has a useful side effect, but that should be provided in a > more orderly fashion, by a BIF. > > -- gil > -- sas
