I got out of the habit of using EQU * for labels long ago due to an assembler-level debugger (I don't remember which one now) that didn't recognize EQU labels but did recognize DS 0H labels.
I have always avoided directly labelling procedural statements for the same reason you did - one less card to punch in Ye Olde Times. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 5:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: z/OS HLASM: EQU for statement labels I use 0H if it is the beginning of a section of code and there might be an odd-length DC in front of it. But I use * when I am jumping around one instruction. Revealing my age, I got in the habit of using EQU rather than labeled machine instructions because if you are using punched cards and need to insert a new instruction right after the label, you only have to punch one card if you used EQU, but two if you put the label on a machine instruction. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Shaw Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 1:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: z/OS HLASM: EQU for statement labels I agree with Gerhard; I was taught and use label DS 0H for labels instead of EQU. -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
