On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:17:10 +0000 Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote:
:>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. What SCON risks? By using LOCTR you can have data adjacent to the code in the source while in a completely different area in the object deck, i.e., the SCON uses the current usings even though it is instantiated in another section of the code. And your suggestion of simply doing an EX on the LAY, the requires that the B (and possibly its associated AR) are unchanged. The service routine does not know which registers are available. The advantage is a R/O pre-built parameter list with both data and metadata , i.e., type of data, length of data, etc. where the code to invoke the routine (besides moving the register save instructions to the calling routine rather than the called routine) is passing the pointer to the metadata list. -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
