On 25 June 2018 at 21:49, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
> Seriously, l like it and would use it. I'd prefer it not be tied to USING
> because there are other reasons to not use a register (I think; can't come
> up with any offhand, but I feel like there are?). Maybe:
>
> I suppose there are plenty of c
DONTUSE Rx ?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Phil Smith III
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 12:49 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: An idea I got when researching a bug - warnings when a spe
More like "NOT USING", eh? :)
Seriously, l like it and would use it. I'd prefer it not be tied to USING
because there are other reasons to not use a register (I think; can't come
up with any offhand, but I feel like there are?). Maybe:
PROTECT Rx
For extra credit:
PROTECT Rx,'In use
Binyamin,
as others have pointed out, no such option exists.
But: you can roll your own, if you want to!
I built a prototype, and it works like a charm.
Here's what I did:
1) replace EQU with a macro. Register all register equates
in a set of GBLx tables. Thus, even MY_DCB_POINTER can
b
I'm in favor. I'd prefer some new verb other than USING, although I
wouldn't go to mat if USING was more popular. To weaken my case, I think
you can use "dummy" USINGs if needed (I do already for documenting a
register that should not change).
USING DUMMY,R2 * This is the count
One could de
There is no option at present to detect modification of a base
register which is currently active in a USING, but variants of
this idea already appear at least four times in the requirements
list (from GUIDE, SHARE, customers, IBM internal etc.) which was
passed to the HLASM team some years ago by
I like the idea -- in fact it was on my Christmas Wish List that I sent to
John E. every once in a while. How desirable would it be to not tie it to
a USING? There's no reason a register other than a USING base shouldn't
be able to be declared Constant. Making it part of a USING would make it
On 25 June 2018 at 11:49, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> Since the assembler knows which instructions modify which registers, it would
> be nice if there was a way to "protect" a register for a code range.
>
> Perhaps
>
> USING area,Rx,protect
>
> Any alteration of the register
AFAIK, HLASM has no such option; I like it, but would prefer that the DROP for
a protected register require special unprotect syntax. One issue that needs to
be hashed out is how to handle dependent USING..
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
__
I do like it.
Perhaps a warning message on a violation.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 8:50 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: An idea I got when
Since the assembler knows which instructions modify which registers, it would
be nice if there was a way to "protect" a register for a code range.
Perhaps
USING area,Rx,protect
Any alteration of the register until the DROP would cause a warning message on
the instruction
11 matches
Mail list logo
