On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:06:54 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>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?
>
More verbose in that "4096" is two more keystrokes than "12".
>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.
>
I was thinking otherwise, such as even SECTALGN(137) to specify that
the section is to be aligned on a boundary that's a multiple of 137
(not 2^137). Why would someone want to do that? Don't know.
But why preclude it if it should become useful in the future.
>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.
>
Not as I read it:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ASMP1020/HDRSECTALN
Title: V1R6 Programmer's Guide
Document Number: SC26-4941-05
3.2.34 SECTALGN
...
Default
8 (doubleword alignment)
...
| Specifies the alignment for all sections. The alignment must be a
| power of 2 between 8 (doubleword) and 4096 (page) .
3, 5, 6, and 10 are not powers of two.
You appear to have fallen victim to the very inconsistency of
which John G. complained.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
