In a recent note, Edward E. Jaffe said: > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:00:53 -0700 > > Arthur T. wrote: > > > On 13 Jul 2005 16:01:06 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > > (Message-ID:<[log in to unmask]>) > > [log in to unmask] (Edward E. Jaffe) wrote: > > > >> Of course, with modern HLASM it's preferable to code 'DC 0H' rather > >> than the 'DS 0H' as required by older assembler implementations. > > Wasn't "DC 0H'0'" always permissible, and preferable to "DS 0H", except for the cost of the three additional keystrokes?
> > Would you please elucidate? IIRC, DS 0H will fill with zeros > > just as will DC 0H. Why is the latter preferable? > > No. 'DS 0H' does *not* fill with zeros! Only 'DC 0H' does that! > I was surprised to learn this; for some reason, I had long believed that the filling would use part of the binary value of the constant. Experiment shows I was wrong. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
