Well, the statement from Peter Relson (and others) which is essentially: ---------- LA R1,1 is exactly equivalent to LA R1,1(0). Just look at the generated object code. ---------- is not totally true. It all depends upon which USINGs are in effect.
Take a peek at the following example (admittedly a bit unusual, but perfectly legitimate). Loc Object Code Addr1 Addr2 Stmt Source Statement 00000000 00000000 00000008 1 EXAMPLE CSECT , R:9 00000000 2 USING 0,9 00000000 4120 9100 00000100 3 LA 2,256 00000004 4120 0100 00000100 4 LA 2,256(,0) 5 END , If the intent is to place a truly non-relocatable value (e.g., a constant) into a GPR (which IS the intent of this example), then I believe the coding style of statement 4 is the preferred way to go; it is explicit and unambiguous. This applies to many other instructions which use base+displacement operands (examples: SLL, SRL, SLDL) which are not interpreted as address values. Bob
