I (to some extent "unfortunately") expect such inconsistency across the suite of books (imagine if we still supported both ESA/390 and z Architectures as options -- what "notation" would we use)? The effort to change every 32-bit-register bit reference to its "appropriate" 64-bit-register bit reference is likely to be more than anyone is willing to commit to (no matter how good an idea it is)..
But surely we should expect to be consistent for a given macro. Perhaps someone can suggest a notation that would make it clear "this is a bit reference that applies to a 64-bit register". Using "the words" can make it clear but is cumbersome. "Bits 32.24-31" (vs "Bits 24-31 of the 32-bit register"), "Bits 64.15-23" (vs "bits 15-23 of the 64-bit register"), "Control Register 2.64.0-31" (vs "64-bit Control register 2 bits 0-31"). Not pretty. (Obviously if the numeric range includes a value >= 32, there is no ambiguity, so once converted the cases Charles pointed out will be clear enough without additional clarification.) Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
