Most code examples in IBM manuals are pretty poor examples of coding, and
I'd think IBM would take more care with them, just because it would
make them look smarter.  Nevertheless, as Charles alluded, they serve their
purpose, and I've found them useful many times.

But I'd never copy them.

sas


On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 7:49 PM Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:

> Well, a doc writer giving examples has to balance between trivial versus
> overly complex, and has to make certain assumptions about the reader's
> knowledge and environment.
>
> This example is flawed as you indicate but I would find it useful. It at
> least shows the format of TEXT and CONSNAME.
>
> Charles
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 3:45 PM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: YA MGCRE RCF?
>
> Well, that got terribly garbled.  Trying a different way.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 10:30:13 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> >Do I have cause for an RCF here?
> >
> >In  z/OS 2.5 MVS Programming: Authorized Assembler Services
> Reference, Volume 3 (LLA-SDU)
> >IBM SA23-1374-50
> >
> >I see: MGCRE - Execute form
> >
> DOMTST   CSECT
> R2       EQU   2
>          USING *,R12
>          LA    R2,CMD                   R2 POINTS TO THE COMMAND AREA
>          MGCRE MF=(E,LAREA),TEXT=(R2),CMDFLAG=(NOHCPY),CONSNAME=MYCON
> CMD      DS    0CL6                     THE COMMAND AREA
> CMDLEN   DC    XL2'4'                   LENGTH OF COMMAND
> CMDCOMM  DC    CL4'D C '                THE ACTUAL COMMAND
> MYCON    DC    CL8'CON4    '            NAME OF ISSUING CONSOLE
> LAREA    MGCRE MF=L                     LIST FORM OF MGCRE
>          END
>
>  It's inconsistent that there is an EQU for R2 but not R12.
>
> The content of R12 is nowhere defined, by e.g. LR R12,R15.
>
> Has this code been tested?
>
> Outside this example, the doc does not mention a need for
> CSECT addressability. Is this generally assumed,
> or must it be asserted for each macro? |
>
> --
> Thanks,
> gil
>

Reply via email to