It's good for a lot more, but an add immediate will be easier on the reader and perhaps even faster.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> on behalf of Charles Mills <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 8:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Questionable Instructions in Obtaining EAX documentation Works better than it used to! It's good to ~2 billion now, right? Was only good to ~16 million when they coded it. I'm not confused on how LA works in AMODE 31, am I? I never use it for integer arithmetic anymore so I could be off base here. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 11:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Questionable Instructions in Obtaining EAX documentation On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 20:51, Kerry Liles <[email protected]> wrote: > Old habits die hard... I still just use LA 1,256 although now I > might just code it as LA 1,256(,0) > I'm more worried about old code and old programmers doing LA 1,1(,1) doing arithmetic. Rob
