I think T' an undefined symbol is documented as having a value of 'U", so the Case 2 AIF is valid but unsatisfied, and the DC assembles. I don't see a bug.
Case 1 is a paradox. "If A is going to be defined, then skip defining it." I am not sure what a piece of software should do with that. It's the liar paradox. How do you interpret "this statement is a lie"? Charles On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 09:34:29 -0500, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 01:25:32 +0000, Richard Zierdt wrote: > >>Gil, I took the bait and assembled two cases. >> >>* Case 1, symbol A is checked before definition: >> AIF (T'A EQ 'F').SKIP >>A DC F'42' >>.SKIP ANOP >> >>* Case 2, same as Case 1, but X is undefined: >> AIF (T'X EQ 'F').SKIP2 >>A DC F'42' >>.SKIP2 ANOP >> >>Results: >>Case 1, nothing was created and no (error) messages; >>Case 2, symbol A was assembled as a fullword without error even though X is >>undefined. >> >There's a bug in HLASM. Perhaps two bugs. In each case >reference to an undefined symbol, A in Case 1, X in Case 2, >is not reported as an error as it should be. > >Does the Ref. clarify this? > >Also, in Case 1 this may apply: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
