Better than a brach-around IMHO. CharlesSent from a mobile; please excuse the
brevity.
-------- Original message --------From: Melvyn Maltz
<0000072265160664-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> Date: 11/8/21 12:57 PM
(GMT-08:00) To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Base-less macros
Hi there,I hate the term base-less it means 'without foundation' !I'm not sure
what the fuss is about, I've been using base-free code with literals for
years.eg.LARL R3,=C'ABCDE-'MVC THERE(5),0(R3)Yes, it's a 5-byte literal
extended to 6 to keep the LARL happyLARL has a range of +/- 2G which should
keep most coders happy, so it doesn't matter where the LTORG isMelvyn Maltz.On
08/11/2021 12:25 am, Tony Thigpen wrote:> I finally am to the point where I no
longer need to worry about > specific customers having hardware that does not
support relative > instructions, so I am updating some macros I provide to be
baseless.>> What is the 'preferred' approach to macro generated constants? In
the > past, I have used both inline constants that I branch around, and > ltorg
literals (=c'x').>> In the past, I have been bitten by using ltorg literals and
the client > did not put a LTORG after my macro causing a 'no active base
register' > issue. So, I am thinking inline with a BRAS is better.>> Maybe
there is another approach that I missed?>> Suggestions?>> Tony Thigpen
