On 2017-03-06, at 07:04, Thomas David Rivers wrote: >>> >>> that means, for this bright Monday morning - I'll have to enter a bug. >>> >> But here, I disagree with HLASM's behavior and believe DASM is doing >> the right thing. >> >> Which bug will you enter? > > The bug goes in with as "we aren't the same as HLASM". > > It's surprising how far-reaching an incompatibility will be, so > when we strive to be compatible (i.e. as 'the same' as we can be.) > And if someone else reports the HLASM bug, and it gets fixed, you'll have to change back.
HLASM is arguably incorrect for AMODE 24 and AMODE 31; unquestionably wrong when the code is executed in AMODE 64. Yes, I know HLASM is indifferent to the AMODE at execution. But this is Calvinball, isn't it? -- gil
