I wasn't proposing using LOCTR for the literal pool, but for named constants
that you would otherwise branch around.
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf
of Paul Gilmartin <00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:45 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Base-less macros
On Nov 8, 2021, at 08:13:09, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
> What's wrong with using LOCTR in a customer-facing macro?
>
It requires an unlikely degree of coordination between
vendor and customer leest a construct like the following
unwittingly occur:
BAR LOCTR
USING *,2
* ... (More stuff)
FOO LOCTR
L 1,=F'42'
* ... (More stuff)
BAR LOCTR
* ... (More stuff)
LTORG
The interaction of LOCTR with LTORG is ill-defined. Ideally,
there might be a qualifier on each literal controlling which
LOCTR owns it rather than assembling all pending literals at
any LTORG.
-- gil
