On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:14:39 +0300, Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 15:27:34 -0500 Jon Perryman <[email protected]> wrote: >:>I've never seen a valid use case for S-CONS. > >A read only parameter list where the target routine uses the callers registers >to calculate the address of the parameters. I'd love to hear if Peter Relson would allow this use of S-CONS despite the risks. If I were reviewing this code, you would be rewriting it. There are much safer alternatives with far less complexity. An S-CON is validated where it's coded instead of where it is used. The greater the distance, the greater the risk. Something as simple as PUSH, DROP & POP fails to catch a coding error. >I chose to use LAY to get the BLLLHH and overlay the E300 and 71 with other >metadata (length,type,etc.) If you could somehow justify the S-CON risks, I would point out the inefficiency of your implementation using SY() which would be at least 10 instructions instead of a single instruction that utilizes hardware to process the long S-CON. E.g. if you left the LAY intact, then you could have used EX to execute the LAY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
