You are not mistaken. <g> LARL will apparently work, but does require GOFF:
ASMA215W Relative Immediate external relocation in NOGOFF object text - FOO > You can't even do what you want to do with LLILF if FOO is in the same CSECT Right, but you could if the assembler simply allowed it. There is nothing logically impossible about it. It would not require some great leap. See the next quote. > I would go with: LLILF 2,0/ORG *-4/DC VL4(FOO) Right. If the assembler allows that, why the heck won't it simply allow FOO in the instruction syntax. (BTW, I think it should be AL4 not VL4.) > the binder can help Well, I did learn something. I did not know that relative instructions could be "relocated" by the binder. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 7:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ASMA032E Relocatable value or unresolved symbol found when absolute value required On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 07:01:22 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >> Is that an attempt to use LLILF to do accomplish what LARL does? > >That's not what I am attempting. LARL will not work -- unless I am >mistaken I believe you are mistaken. You may need to use GOFF. >-- if the relationship between the instruction and the target cannot be >known by the assembler. Why do you think that it can't be done with relative instructions if you think it can be handled for immediate instructions? You can't even do what you want to do with LLILF if FOO is in the same CSECT, >The assembler needs to be able to calculate FOO-*, which is not >possible for the assembler if FOO is in another CSECT. True, but the binder can help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
