I mean, if you would code a macro and use ERROR NOTLOW, 30303 It would be a different discussion. I think dome 4+4+2+4 keeps me busy way longer.
Rob On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 19:05, Tony Thigpen <[email protected]> wrote: > Those were just made up instructions, not real code. > > The point was that I was taught that when you branch around multiple > instructions, to make it clear to someone else, you can: > 1) Write the *+ information so that it was obvious that there were > multiple instructions and the length you expected them to be, and, > 2) Indent the instructions being branched around so that, again, it is > obvious that something needed to be looked at if the code was modified. > > Personally, adding an extra label when branching around one, or two > instructions just makes the program more cluttered. > > One place I used this a lot is when handling errors. > BL *+4+4+4 > L R15,ERRNO_30303 > B General_error_routine > MVC XXXXX,YYYYY > (Again, just typing some example code, not actual code.) > > Of course, I also use GOTO in COBOL, so maybe I am just a non-standard > person. > > Tony Thigpen > > Rob van der Heij wrote on 08/03/2018 12:13 PM: > > I’m afraid those sequences only make sense when you wrote them, not much > > later. I inherited similar attempts to code the length of data. Just > don’t. > > > > On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 18:03, Tony Thigpen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I was taught that to make it easy to read, do the following: > >> BL *+4+2 > >> LR R1,R2 > >> or > >> BL *+4+2+4 > >> LR R1,R2 > >> LA R3,0(,r1) > >> It may not look right in your email, but the branched around > >> instructions are indented one extra character. > >> > >> Tony Thigpen > >> > >> Phil Smith III wrote on 08/03/2018 10:40 AM: > >>> Peter Relson wrote: > >>> > >>> I don't remember who taught me the technique, though it must have been > >> at UofW in the early 80s. I internalized it as "This isn't a 'real' > >> branch-that is, we aren't going very far, just skipping a single > >> instruction". And I would never, ever, ever consider doing it for more > than > >> one instruction. > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
