HLASM vs PoOP for 64-bit load on condition instructions?
I just noticed a conflict between our version of HLASM (z/OS V1.10, HLASM R1.6 PTF UK59311) and the z/Arch PoOP. When I run ASMA90 with the option to print the UNIFIED or ZSERIES-5 level instruction tables, the instruction mnemonics for the 64-bit version of the load on condition instructions is different from the eighth edition PoOP manual. HLASM prints this for the 64-bit version: LGOC RSY EBE2 R1,D2(B2),M3 LGOCERSY EBE2 R1,D2(B2),M3 LGOCHRSY EBE2 R1,D2(B2),M3 LGOCLRSY EBE2 R1,D2(B2),M3 LGOCNE RSY EBE2 R1,D2(B2),M3 LGOCNH RSY EBE2 R1,D2(B2),M3 LGOCNL RSY EBE2 R1,D2(B2),M3 But the z/Arch PoOP says that the mnemonic is LOGC (page 7-228). There is also a difference in HLASM's store on condition mnemonic vs. the PoOP, STGOC vs STOCG (p. 7-309 in the PoOP). Which one is correct? Peter -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
Re: HLASM vs PoOP for 64-bit load on condition instructions?
Which one is correct? And Johns answer: The PoP is correct. Of course- the question itself is heresy ;-) -- Martin Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE more at http://www.picapcpu.de
Re: HLASM vs PoOP for 64-bit load on condition instructions?
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:27, Martin Trübner wrote: Which one is correct? And Johns answer: The PoP is correct. Of course- the question itself is heresy What would happen if, for example, the hardware designers invented some new stack manipulations and named them PUSH and POP? -- gil
Re: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest - 5 Jun 2011 to 6 Jun 2011 (#2011-96)
I don't often comment here, but I feel motivated to comment about the 'read the manual' comments. I can't speak for OLD IBM manuals, but I CAN speak for current ones. You are inundated in spurious and unnecessary things in all the RIGHT places, but frequently the important information is in very obscure places. AND there is no consistency in where that obscure location is. This is consistent with the typical programmer doc, but still...one can't say reading the manual does anything but tell you where the information you need is NOT at. As such, I've given up on IBM manuals 20 years ago. Can anyone give a class on reading current IBM manuals and FIND info(which you don't already know, I can find THAT)?
Re: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest - 5 Jun 2011 to 6 Jun 2011 (#2011-96)
I worked for a couple of years as a DB2 DBA in DC government before and after Y2K. Around 2003 or so I attended a DB2 conference in Europe. They had some DBA qualification tests. I took a practice test on one of the computers. I failed miserably. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Walker Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:27 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest - 5 Jun 2011 to 6 Jun 2011 (#2011-96) I don't often comment here, but I feel motivated to comment about the 'read the manual' comments. I can't speak for OLD IBM manuals, but I CAN speak for current ones. You are inundated in spurious and unnecessary things in all the RIGHT places, but frequently the important information is in very obscure places. AND there is no consistency in where that obscure location is. This is consistent with the typical programmer doc, but still...one can't say reading the manual does anything but tell you where the information you need is NOT at. As such, I've given up on IBM manuals 20 years ago. Can anyone give a class on reading current IBM manuals and FIND info(which you don't already know, I can find THAT)?
Re: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest - 5 Jun 2011 to 6 Jun 2011 (#2011-96)
such, I've given up on IBM manuals 20 years ago. Can anyone give a class on reading current IBM manuals and FIND info(which you don't already know, I can find THAT)? Have you tried this one: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/index.jsp
Re: HLASM vs PoOP for 64-bit load on condition instructions?
On 7 June 2011 13:15, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:27, Martin Trübner wrote: Which one is correct? And Johns answer: The PoP is correct. Of course- the question itself is heresy What would happen if, for example, the hardware designers invented some new stack manipulations and named them PUSH and POP? When the XA architecture came out, the designers added a TRACE instruction, and its addition to ASMH made it impossible to assemble much of VM/HPO. IBM's response at the time was WAD: ASM XF was the only supported assembler. It was easy to work around, but of course PUSH and POP are now so entrenched in the larger assembler world that even the hardware designers would presumably have trouble, uh, pushing that one through. Tony H.
Re: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest - 5 Jun 2011 to 6 Jun 2011 (#2011-96)
I'll second Tobias's recommendation: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/index.jsp http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/index.jspI know you're right about important information sometimes being hidden in obscure places. The solution is to give up on the hard copy manuals and use the online manuals. With BookManager bookshelves, searchable PDF's and the Information Centers I'm sure the writers expect you to search online for information and some of it would be impossible to find using only hard copy. The only time I use hard copy is when I need information on an old IBM product. Some of the products still used and supported today last put out new documentation before the books started going online. One caveat about searching in the infocenter link above. You will often get too many hits. If you have an idea of the areas to which you can limit the search, use the SEARCH SCOPE settings to do it. You can save those so that you can do more focused searches when you need to, and and only search everything when you have no idea where to look. Not everything is in the Information Centers. Some books are on FTP sites, some are still only in BookManager Bookshelves and some are located in places that seem impossible to find from the main www.ibm.com page. Some books have moved to other sites like infoprint.com or afpcinc.org. . Google is your friend for finding books. --Roger On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM, John Walker jwalker...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't often comment here, but I feel motivated to comment about the 'read the manual' comments. I can't speak for OLD IBM manuals, but I CAN speak for current ones. You are inundated in spurious and unnecessary things in all the RIGHT places, but frequently the important information is in very obscure places. AND there is no consistency in where that obscure location is. This is consistent with the typical programmer doc, but still...one can't say reading the manual does anything but tell you where the information you need is NOT at. As such, I've given up on IBM manuals 20 years ago. Can anyone give a class on reading current IBM manuals and FIND info(which you don't already know, I can find THAT)?
