>> As it is now, there's the IBM macros and there's other versions from other sources, >> which may not be consistent in syntax and implementation.
>> I've already had to rewrite a large assembler program to remove the macros, >> because they were licensed when I wrote it but then the license was dropped. That is exactly why I have my own version of IF, WHILE, and SELECT constructs... Because I take my assembler utilities from company to company as I move around (and I distribute some of my utilities to others), so I have to make sure I have a consistent set of these constructs available to me. >> How can you call it High Level assembler without the macros? Totally agree! HLASM may have some "high-level" attributes but without logical constructs it is not even in the same league as a true high-level language. Sincerely, Dave Clark -- int.ext: 91078 direct: (937) 531-6378 home: (937) 751-3300 Winsupply Group Services 3110 Kettering Boulevard Dayton, Ohio 45439 USA (937) 294-5331 On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:32 AM Schmitt, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > My opinion is that the structured programming macros should be included > with HLASM, at no extra cost. For four reasons: > > 1. How can you call it High Level assembler without the macros? > > 2. The macro library is already a prerequisite for other IBM products, > such as IMS. > > 3. Having the macros part of HLASM would standardize them. As it is now, > there's the IBM macros and there's other versions from other sources, which > may not be consistent in syntax and implementation. > > 4. We can't code using the macros as it is now, because while perhaps we > have a license *today*, we can't know that we'll always have the license. > I've already had to rewrite a large assembler program to remove the macros, > because they were licensed when I wrote it but then the license was > dropped. So I learned my lesson: never use the macros. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Jonathan Scott > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 8:23 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Toolkit support for compare and jump? > > Pieter Wiid writes: > > Found a bug in this implementation: > > ... 1686 DOEXIT CIJ,R15,NE,0 > > ... 1696+ CIJ R15,0 > > ** ASMA175S Delimiter error, expected comma - > > This example appears to be simply due to using an old level of > the HLASM Toolkit Structured Programming Macro macro library > which does not include the Compare-and-Branch support. > > However, the example included with the case does show a problem > when DOEXIT specifies a compare-and-branch instruction followed > by a logical OR condition, which is that an undefined label is > used for the branch. > > > I raised case TS016361097, but IBM are being obstructive on entitlement. > > Unlike HLASM, which is included as standard with z/OS, the HLASM > Toolkit, which includes the Structured Programming Macros and > ASMIDF, is an optional priced feature, which must be licensed > separately. So an appropriate license needs to be located. > > Personally, I've always felt that we should encourage customers > to report bugs and also that there should be no charge to report > a problem if you do not actually need a fix. I would even like > some way to reward customers who provide helpful information > about problems. However, that's not how IBM works. > > In this case, the team are now aware of the problem, and are > quite likely to look into fixing it anyway, but it is always > easier for us to prioritise work on a fix if it is associated > with a valid customer case. > > Jonathan Scott, HLASM > IBM Hursley, UK >
