Bernd, Ty for your thread. Some of us unfortunately work in multiple languages are of course are getting older, so we may have to ask about a design or concept more than once..yes I am older and I have a condition which makes focusing sometimes difficult...
That being said, my reason for baseless code is eliminating multiple base register usage and maintain ability..am I wrong here ? Scott ford www.identityforge.com from my IPAD 'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' > On Dec 6, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Bernd Oppolzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Cross-Posted to IBM-Main and IBM-ASSEMBLER-List > > I believe it has been discussed before: > > the term "baseless programming" is an over-simplification. > It should be "an ASSEMBLER programming technique, where the > code area is not covered by base registers" - which requires > separation of code area and data area and relative branch instructions; > take care of your literals. > > If you have large code areas, this may save you some registers, > or you may save some time otherwise needed to save and reload > the registers which cover the code area. > > I managed to convert most of our inhouse macros in the last few months > to "baseless", including the site-specific SP macros, so now I don't have > restrictions regarding the size of the code areas any more. Of course, > it is not good to have large code areas (small functional blocks are better), > but if you want to add trace output macros or other test facilities to a > functional block, you don't like it if code area size restrictions prevent you > from doing it. This was the main reason for my "baseless" effort - I had > to do some maintenance to some very large and very old programs, and > the only way to do it was to add some trace output. > > Thanks to Ed Jaffe for the link to the SHARE presentation, BTW. > > Kind regards > > Bernd > > > > > Am 06.12.2013 02:05, schrieb John McKown: >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, zMan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Ouch. SO true. >> Yes. In this same vein, but a bit more seriously, why don't we start using >> RI-programming (for Relative & Immediate) or RelImm-programming. Because >> there is _no_ way that I can think of to write _useful_ code which does not >> use at least a few base+displacement instructions. At the very least for >> the incoming parameter list. Well, maybe a random() type program could be >> written without using any base+displacement instructions if it did some >> sort of manipulation of the data returned by the STCKE instruction instead >> of having a seed and basing the current result on the previous one. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
