Hi Melvyn, is this what you are looking for? It does not duplicate PoP, but does have some references ...
http://www.bixoft.com/english/opcd/balr.htm Kind regards, Abe === Op 10/02/2022 om 21:30 schreef Melvyn Maltz: > Hi Guys, > > Specifically to Dave Cole's query... > > >>>(FWIW, I find both books to be abysmal documents!) > >>>(There. That ought to create a firestorm!) > > A few years ago and on this forum I dared to say that the PoO was > totally inadequate for the 21st century...an opinion I still hold > > It did get a 'firestorm' reaction, about evenly distributed between, > "it's a bible and cannot be modified" to those agreeing with me > > Among my suggestions, only applying to instruction descriptions is > that... > These should be in a separate Manual, one 'page' per instruction, > hyperlinks to similar instructions, maybe a tracker saying 'people who > looked at AHI also looked at LHI :-)' > > Perhaps there's someone out there who has the time > > Melvyn Maltz. > > On 10/02/2022 07:40 pm, David Cole wrote: >> WRT: >>> "A gentle reminder on terminology: The term "JUMP" appears neither >>> in the PoO nor in the z/Architecture Reference Summary (SA22-7832). >>> What you refer to as "JAS (jump and save)" is simply reflecting the >>> extended mnemonic for BRANCH RELATIVE AND SAVE (BRAS)." >> >> >> >> The PoOps has some inconsistencies... One that I find rather >> irritating is the presences of extended mnemonics for a large number >> of newer instructions, but the omission of same for all of the BC, >> BRC, BRAS and related instructions. >> >> Yes, I am quite aware that I included redundant entries in my list. I >> didn't care because it was beside the point. >> >> Speaking of fake mnemonics... What is the difference between >> "extended mnemonics" (such as CGIJNE) and "alternative mnemonics" >> (such as JAS)? Is it that one is documented only in the PoOp and the >> other only in HLASM Ref? >> >> (FWIW, I find both books to be abysmal documents!) >> (There. That ought to create a firestorm!) >> >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 2/10/2022 01:27 PM, Dan Greiner wrote: >>> Having learned this stuff in the 1970s — before the linkage stack >>> showed up in the late 1980s — I was accustomed to hearing them >>> called simply "linkage instructions." For the common usage of >>> application programmers who need a simple instruction to branch to >>> Oz while leaving a footprint of how to get back to Kansas, that's >>> probably sufficient. >>> . >>> >>> The z/Architecture Principles of Operation (SA22-7832-10) refers to >>> such instruction in a section labelled "Subroutine Linkage without >>> the Linkage Stack" (p. 5-16 onward), with the simple stuff like >>> BAL[R], BAS[R] and friends called "Simple Branch Instructions". This >>> text shows the awkwardness that crept into the architecture when >>> various commonly-used terms get redeployed for other purposes. [A >>> brief aside: During the design of the S/360, the designers >>> deliberately eschewed a stack architecture in favor of the chained >>> save-area approach. With the advent of ESA, they changed their minds >>> (sort of) and implemented a linkage stack.] >>> >>> A gentle reminder on terminology: The term "JUMP" appears neither in >>> the PoO nor in the z/Architecture Reference Summary (SA22-7832). >>> What you refer to as "JAS (jump and save)" is simply reflecting the >>> extended mnemonic for BRANCH RELATIVE AND SAVE (BRAS).
