So, your macro doesn't know the condition. I was thinking of something like an IF macro.
OK, some more unsolicited free advice (as usual maybe worth what you pay for it). I doubt that loading the operands into registers and comparing them there is going to be any faster than a CLC. It will definitely take up more space, which may cause USING range problems. I'll take it for granted you know all operands fit into 4 bytes. sas On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 9:09 AM David Eisenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >I think it would much more straightforward to adjust the condition< > > Steve, > > I understand what you mean. My issue is that the macro is intended to > replace pre-existing CLC instructions within legacy applications (the macro > will examine and potentially modify the comparands prior to the compare). > My hope is to code the macro in such a way that the original two CLC > operands can be passed as positional parameters to the macro without > swapping their order, and without the need for the developer to change any > of the conditions in the subsequent jump instructions. I.e., my desire is > to make the macro as functionally transparent as possible to the invoking > applications. > > If it’s too nonsensical for me to modify the CC after a CLHHSI, then I’ll > probably take the approach of putting the operands in the high-halves of R0 > and R1 and doing a CLHHR. > > Thanks, > > David >
