On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Gerhard Postpischil gerh...@valley.net wrote:
Not sure what's confusing about it; I've had an INC for ages (no
DEC, instead put INC=-1 on INC - that may be confusing?). It
changes either a register or storage, and had a version for
halfwords named INCH g
Yep!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:24:14 +1000 Robin Vowels robi...@dodo.com.au wrote:
:From: Watkins, Douglas douglas.watk...@compuware.com
:Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2012 11:28 PM
: Here's one way to do standard EXecute without a base register:
: AHI R2,-1 Minus 1 for EX
:BTW,
:
All your bases are belong to us ?
Regards,
Thomas Berg
___
Thomas Berg Specialist AM/SMS SWEDBANK AB (publ)
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
l...@listserv.uga.edu] För John
All your bases are belong to us ?
For great justice.
Fred!
-
ATTENTION:
The information in this electronic mail message is private and
confidential, and only intended for the addressee. Should you
receive this message by mistake,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se wrote:
All your bases are belong to us ?
LOL. Just when I was convinced we had cross-talk with the IBM-MAIN list ;-)
May the source be with you...
On 6/18/2012 4:05 AM, Fred van der Windt wrote:
All your bases are belong to us ?
For great justice.
Fred!
Says the Dutchman replying to the Swede! I love this list!
--
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.
303-355-2752
http://www.trainersfriend.com
* To get a good
Steve Comstock wrote:
I was going to suggest 'free base' as a 'positive' way
of saying one is relatively free from using base registers,
but that term also has unfortunate conotations.
Indeed...debased would be my choice! :-)
...phsiii
Excerpted from IBM-MAIN:
The assembly uses the BATCH option. There are multiple assembly steps and
the RETURN CODE you are quoting is from the LAST batched assemble.
The OP and several followups (including mine) were misled
by this. It would be a useful enhancement if HLASM provided
a summary
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 6:23 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Base registers
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Berg
On 2012-06-13 10:21, Pesce, Andy wrote:
I was always taught:
LABELEQU*
to distinguish a label. However, when I perform maintenance on a program
that someone else wrote with:
LABELDS 0H
I use that way. This keeps it standardized throughout the program as not to
confuse
the next
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:01:05 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
Unbased is better by a wide margin than baseless.
I should still, however, prefer a non-negative form.
I don't have an entirely satisfactory suggestion, but I
sometimes refer to it as Relative code.
IMO, Unbased suffers from the same
n 6/17/2012 8:18 AM, Hardee, Chuck wrote:
Hello Listers!
I am in the process of writing a macro and would like to control whether or not
some MNOTEs are generated.
What I am looking for is whether or not I can check the current status of GEN
versus NOGEN.
If the macro is assembled and PRINT
Steven here,
JRAIC sounds Jurassicr, what some Intel enthusiasts call the Mainframe and all
Mainframers - counting me.
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:28:55 -0500
From: joa...@swbell.net
Subject: Proposal: Replacement for baseless code terminology
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
I'm
13 matches
Mail list logo
