On 29 April 2016 at 12:06, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29/04/2016 11:55 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: >> >> On 29 April 2016 at 11:50, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> What about substituting a branch relative for the branch on base >>> register? Trivial code change to make. >> >> I was about to suggest that too. All the IBM published material I've >> seen on this suggests that > > > It was a simple test case to exercise our legacy code base which issue > non-relative unconditional branches over eye-catchers. It's non-trivial to > change and test a huge code base and certainly you wouldn't want to without > understanding the problem. But there's certainly an issue as our customers > have reported.
You quoted me, but snipped out everything I actually said... Which I think does partly address your question. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
