On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:11:50 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >And, of course, the SECTALGN convention is to be preferred despite >being more verbose because it allows extension at some time in >the unforseeable future when a boundary not a power of 2 might >become useful.
You lost me with that. More verbose than what? I suppose someone might find it useful to (for example) align a CSECT to a doubleword boundary that is not a quadword boundary. I don't know why someone would want to do that. SECTALGN does not allow any such specification. The value specified for SECTALGN is an integer that is used as a power of 2 to specify the alignment required. 0=byte 1=halfword 2=word 3=doubleword 4=quadword 5=8-word 6=16-word... 10=page Only a few of these are honored. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
