Arthur T. wrote:
Well, that defeats one of my forced abend techniques:
BRC cond,*+2
This branches into the middle of the BRC (Jump) instruction, which in
this
case is always x'0001', resulting in an S0C1 abend.
SOC1s are too common to stand out. I prefer
EX R15,* (Of course, it doesn't matter which register.)
Yes..
But EX xx,* does require a base register, whereas BRC COND,*+2 doesn't
(it's a relative instruction)
Furthermore, BRC has the advantage of only raising a program interrupt
if the condition is met (so it's a nice 'assert()' alternative).
BRC COND,*+3 would generate a nice specification exception - which is a
little less common than PIC 1, but the assembler would probably throw an
alignment warning there !
You may also, in this case do a BC COND,1 which would generate a
specification exception, requires no base register and also works
reliably without needing the Branch Relative Feature to be installed -
but still generates the unaligned warning in the assembler.. And
unfortunately, you also lose the instruction address instruction that
generated the problem.. come to think of it, it's a bad idea :P
--Ivan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
