RE: Base-less macros Seymour J Metz Tue 11/23/2021 12:48 PM > Maybe I missed something?
Actually, I did; the LARL is necessary. Sorry. > I had started to use: It would have been correct with an ALR or LA rather than an L. > they're cleaner than trying to use the select structured macro (IMO). chacun à son goût -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf of Mark Hammack [mark.hamm...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 12:36 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Base-less macros Thanks everyone! Seymour, I don't see anywhere that Branch Relative on Condition takes an "index register". Maybe I missed something? Charles, the macro I wrote has bounds checking (one of the reasons I wrote it was because I found the potential for exactly the problem you mention). I may have gotten mixed up. I had started to use: LARL 14,*+((48+32+16)/8) L 14,0(15,14) BR 14 DC A(RC0ROUTINE) DC A(RC4ROUTINE) DC A(RC8ROUTINE) and confused myself. I'm not real big on branch tables myself but they're cleaner than trying to use the select structured macro (IMO). Also, my intent was to hide a lot of the branch table weaknesses. From a LOOONG time ago, the original IBM C compiler implemented branch tables for switch/case. Steve, I need to investigate BAS. Thought about BAL but guess I never "equated" the two. *Mark Hammack* Systemware, Inc. Senior z/OS Developer mark.hamm...@gmail.com 214-478-0955 (c)
