On 2017-03-17, at 17:40, MELVYN MALTZ wrote:
>
> A pity our Emails crossed, with regards to the 2X'FF issue please read my
> latest post
> As for the Scon...I agree with you, you must submit a bug report for that one
>
For which of these intructions do you agree/disagree with
HLASM's behavior:
START
H1 EQU -1
LHI 1,H1
LHI 1,-1
DC Y(H1)
DC Y(-1)
H2 EQU X'FFFFFFFF'
LHI 1,H2
LHI 1,X'FFFFFFFF'
DC Y(H2)
DC Y(X'FFFFFFFF')
H3 EQU X'FFFFFFFF'
LHI 1,H3
LHI 1,0+X'FFFFFFFF'
DC Y(H3)
DC Y(X'FFFFFFFF')
H4 EQU 65535
LHI 1,H4
LHI 1,65535
DC Y(H4)
DC Y(65535)
DC H'65535'
H5 EQU X'FFFF'
LHI 1,H5
LHI 1,0+X'FFFF'
DC Y(H5)
DC Y(X'FFFF')
TABLE DC 2AL1(*-TABLE)
LHI 1,2AL1(*-TABLE)
END
As I said earlier, I place considerable value on simplicity and
uniformity of syntax rules. I believe HLASM meets my expectations
well here.
As I also said, I'd welcome additional operators for forming expressions:
AND, OR, XOR, SLL, SLA, SRL, SRA, LT, LE, EQ, NE, GE, and GT.
And 64-bit arithmetic. I'd not like to see distinct 32-bit and 64-bit
exprssion types, Rather, all expressions should have 64-bit values.
But a switch to allow compatibility with existing ASMADATA format.
-- gil
