On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:07:28 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >> A less 'easy' alternative would be to introduce types, and >> associated instructions: GBLA32, GBLA64 > >Initial reaction: Ugh! > I neglected to say that. Thanks for completing my thought.
>> Or, a PARM option to select 64-bit capability. That would most readily >> support ASMADATA compatibility. > >Exactly what I meant. Ideally two parms: allow 64-bit symbols and write new >ASMADATA format. It would be permissible to select 64-bit symbols with old >ASMADATA, resulting in a warning that some values in ASMADATA might be >truncated. Default to old format, with a documentation notice that in the next >release it would start defaulting to new format. > I hate truncation. Either any construct to write an oversize symbol to old-format ASMADATA should be reported as an assembly error, or selecting old-format ASMADATA should entirely disable 64-bit capability. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
