On 2017-03-21, at 11:03, MELVYN MALTZ wrote: > Hi Steves, and Paul, > > Ok, I don't want this argument to get circular > Yet, here I am.
>>>> Why not just specify -1 > As in: > CLI HERE,-1 > No. You took a a well-reasoned statement of Steve's: On 2017-03-20, at 20:18, Steve Smith wrote: > On 3/20/2017 20:58, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> Please don't reply with "Subject:...Digest..." > Sorry... I wish I remembered to do that, but I usually don't. >> >> On 2017-03-20, at 17:45, Steve Smith wrote: >> >>> ..., so if you intend to specify -1, then you >>> must write X'FFFFFFFF'. >>> >> Why not just write -1? > I would. You could. This was for those who really, really, want to pound > the square peg into the round hole. > ... our of context and put it in an absurd context, proving nothing. > CLFI 1,-1 > Ok, much easier to code CLFI 1,4X'FF' > Yes...I know why or why not > And that's an inadequacy of HLASM. The immediate operand of CLFI is supposed to be an unsigned 32-bit number, a value not expressible in HLASM expressions. There's an argument here for HLASM's support of 64-bit (or longer than 32) expressions. Every value that can be used in a machine instruction field should be available in a HLASM expression. Changing the venerable meaning of X'FFFFFFFF' is a disruption, not a solution. 2**31-1 is not equal to -1. > I have enough support for an RFE to be created, this will probably go to a > vote in the UK and then be submitted to IBM. It will be up to IBM to judge > the cost/benefit factors > Unless it's more orderly than I've seen here, I'd oppose it. > Let me restate, whatever form the final RFE takes it will not affect current > code, though it may produce warning messages not previous produced, eg. for > LHI 1,X'FFFFFFFF' which has aleady been discussed to death > The rules are clear. That does not produce a warning, and never should. -- gil
