Rather than DC S(256-work-area-len) to see if work_area_len = 256 we
sometimes use:
DC0AL4(256-work_area_len+X'7FFF') Overflow if high
As that covers a 31-bit value range. It also doesn't cost 2 bytes (though
I expect that Binyamin really uses DC 0S(...) _/
I'm sure there are many
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:11:13 -0400 Peter Relson rel...@us.ibm.com wrote:
:Rather than DC S(256-work-area-len) to see if work_area_len = 256 we
:sometimes use:
:
:DC0AL4(256-work_area_len+X'7FFF') Overflow if high
:
:As that covers a 31-bit value range. It also doesn't cost 2 bytes
As an alternative, I has used dummy named USING statements to validate
things like this.
If I remember correctly, the original poster was copying expanded code
into a work area. If the code to be copied has a 'last byte' DS 0h, then
something like the following will generate an assembler
On 2014-08-19, at 06:11, Peter Relson wrote:
Rather than DC S(256-work-area-len) to see if work_area_len = 256 we
sometimes use:
DC0AL4(256-work_area_len+X'7FFF') Overflow if high
As that covers a 31-bit value range. It also doesn't cost 2 bytes (though
I've been told that
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 07:06:58 -0600 Paul Gilmartin
0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu wrote:
:And since the validity of S(...) depends on the USINGs in effect,
:its use is problematic, at least in a library macro.
If the result is an absolute (non-relocateable) value, only real weird
I've been told that DS 0AL4(...) forces fullword alignment, which
may sometimes be undesirable.
Nope. Length qualifier turns off alignment (in all cases, AFAIK)
Best regards, Steve Hobson
Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM
On 2014-08-18 16:18, Peter Hunkeler wrote:
I'll have to think how some of them may help me to find a solution that
will issue an MNOTE, not an assemlby error because of some statements
like the above DS instruction.
Personal taste is personal taste, but if I had a situation where I
attempted
Personal taste is personal taste, but if I had a situation where I
attempted to add more to a work area than it could hold, I would want to
be hit on the head by the assembler as hard as possible.
That is my intent. I'm asking for an address in (dynamically allocated)
storage (RX-type address)
On 2014-08-19 11:29, Peter Hunkeler wrote:
Under no circumstance must the macro generate code that would write into
storage it has not been given and I don't want the error to be caught and
displayed only at run time.
Peter Relson discussed macro time versus run time:
On 2014-08-19
r1 is loaded from a Field called ANCHOR1@
It contains the address of a storage Block or structure
Before using it I CHECK THE EYE CATCHER which I previously posted.
There is a Compare for the value f the eye catcher to veridy that I am using
the right Storage Structure, and I AM as evident by the
Ich werde ab 18.08.2014 nicht im Büro sein. Ich kehre zurück am
22.09.2014.
Die Rückmeldung bezieht sich auf ein Mail mit folgendem Thema:
Re: Can Someone Point Out My error Here
Gesendet (c) GRZ/RACON
Lou, why are you not using your debugger to trace these 5 instructions?
That would show you exactly what is going on. There is no need to guess.
At the very least blow it up with a program check rather than use a system
service that will modify registers in the process.
Chuck Arney
Arney
From: Peter Hunkeler
That is my intent. I'm asking for an address in (dynamically allocated) storage (RX-type
address) and a length that the macro is allowed to use at that address. I want to make
sure the code the macro generates does
not write beyond that area. If the area is to short, I want
Binding times are an old topic about which much has been written.
Classically, coding time, translation time and execution time are
distinguished, but this trichotomy does not capture many important, if
nuanced, differences.
It is clear enough, as Peter Relson has reminded us, that
At 19:29 +0200 on 08/19/2014, Peter Hunkeler wrote about Re: How to
assign length of generated instructions to macro:
That is my intent. I'm asking for an address in (dynamically allocated)
storage (RX-type address) and a length that the macro is allowed to use
at that address. I want to make
That is my intent. I'm asking for an address in (dynamically allocated)
storage (RX-type address) and a length that the macro is allowed to use at
that
address. I want to make sure the code the macro generates does not write
beyond that area. If the area is to short, I want to inform the
On 2014-08-19, at 09:00, Steve Hobson wrote:
I've been told that DS 0AL4(...) forces fullword alignment, which
may sometimes be undesirable.
Nope. Length qualifier turns off alignment (in all cases, AFAIK)
I stand corrected. I had heard, and I read:
Paul,
Please verify that Static Eye is actually correctly populated in the
dump. Although it is a DC, it may be in a DSECT so not populated.
Tony Thigpen
-Original Message -
From: esst...@juno.com
Sent: 08/17/2014 05:32 PM
Static Eye is a Constant in memory, I dont write anything
18 matches
Mail list logo
