Re: CL8''

On 4/19/2020 11:24 PM, Windt, W.K.F. van der (Fred) wrote: DCCL8'' For such a case, I will always code: DC CL8' ' -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

Re: Does S0C5 still exist ?

On 1/30/2020 12:42 PM, Keith Moe wrote: A big disadvantage of SPIE/ESPIE is that it cannot be used in supervisor state. So you have to use ESTAE even if you know that you want to quickly recover with no dump, LOGREC, etc., from PIC-4/10/11 (such as when chasing system control blocks unlocked)

Re: BASR to AMODE 64

On 12/3/2019 11:07 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Are cross-CSECT relative branches supported? That feels like an invitation to disaster: errors that can not be detected before execution. They have been supported since z/OS 1.7 or 1.8. Very handy to have!!! -- Phoenix Software International

Re: BASR to AMODE 64 (Baseless code)

On 12/2/2019 12:02 PM, Tom Marchant wrote: Locating your constants at the beginning of the program allows you to do that without sacrificing a register. Prezactly! That's what we do (using LOCTRs)... -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA

Re: BASR to AMODE 64 (Baseless code)

On 12/2/2019 12:02 PM, Tom Marchant wrote: Locating your constants at the beginning of the program allows you to do that without sacrificing a register. Prezactly! That's what we do (using LOCTRs)... -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA

Re: BASR to AMODE 64

On 12/2/2019 7:58 AM, Kerry Liles wrote: Or LR 12,15 USING entrypointname,12 And, of course, R15 is not even loaded with the entry point address for programs given control in AMODE(64) :-\ These days, one is expected to issue LARL/USING to your program constants. There is

Re: Where do I find more info about new z15 instruction SORTL listed in Sept. APAR but not in POP

On 12/1/2019 5:59 AM, Don Higgins wrote: All Where do I find more info about new z15 instruction SORTL listed in Sept. APAR but not in POP I asked IBM about this pre-GA and was told that the doc was *deliberately* left out of PoOp because there were not yet any exploiters! WTF? How can

Re: z14 specific instructions?

On 6/5/2019 9:27 AM, John McKown wrote: ...I am now looking at the EXECUTABLE=NO operand of the STORAGE OBTAIN. I already check the z/OS level "02.02.00" or greater to dual path my assembly code. But I have also read that although z/OS 2.3 will accept this operand, on anything less than a z14,

Re: I Want An OPTABLE Built-In Function

On 4/3/2019 12:58 AM, Jonathan Scott wrote: Ref: Your note of Tue, 2 Apr 2019 19:20:49 -0700 To check whether a machine operation code is supported in the current OPTABLE, use the operation code attribute, O'opcode. THANK YOU! -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview

I Want An OPTABLE Built-In Function

I realize we have _OPTABLE, but it's really hard to use because it doesn't return monotonically-increasing values. It gives you characters and 'UNI' < 'Z13' > 'ZS3'. I really want a built-in function I can call to tell me if a mnemonic is legit: LCLB  SETB  OPTABLE('LGFI')  

Re: Best practice using Conditional Assembly

? Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 10:35 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Best practice using Conditional Assembly On 3/7/2019 8:54 PM, Jon Perryman wrote

Re: Best practice using Conditional Assembly

On 3/7/2019 8:54 PM, Jon Perryman wrote: Never use AREAD unless it's really needed and you are willing to code it correctly. Circumventing the assembler is not helpful. AREAD/AINSERT is arguably the most powerful single mechanism in all of HLASM. We use it *everywhere* to build tables and

Re: IEATDUMP MF=L Can someone explain this?

On 8/27/2018 4:45 AM, Charles Mills wrote: Consider using the same list area for multiple services Is that documented anywhere? In other words, you are saying -- just to pick three macros that come to mind -- I could issue an ATTACHX, an EXTRACT and a CLOSE and use the same MF=L area for all

Re: IEATDUMP MF=L Can someone explain this?

On 8/25/2018 6:06 AM, Peter Relson wrote: You mention a "DSECT". I cannot think of any case where a list form builds a DSECT. You might put a list form within a DSECT. But that is your DSECT. Indeed. Putting the list form in a DSECT is the preferred approach these days since (almost?) every

SHARE in St. Louis

If you attended SHARE in St Louis, you were part of an ahhhMAZING event! If not, here is a taste of what you missed: https://youtu.be/kL3T_6NatqI Catch up with us in Phoenix next March... -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245

Re: EX

On 8/6/2018 8:23 AM, Keven wrote: Ditto for  EX R0,* except that you get a 0C3 program interrupt instead, which is usually a sign of code scuttling itself and can be treated as such in recovery routines. Yes, I used the 'EX R0,*' technique back in the 80s and early 90s

Re: Address Space TCB Structure

On 6/17/2018 7:47 AM, esst...@juno.com wrote: . Many Years ago I attended an MVS/XA structure and logic class. . In that class there were diagrams of the TCB Structure for Started Task, Batch Jobs, and TSO logon address space. I'm talking about the address space TCB structure (Region Control

Re: Count Words?

On 6/16/2018 5:53 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: The PoP says for the Vector String instructions that "For all instructions that optionally set the condition code, performance may be degraded if the condition code is set." Have you found that performance can be significantly (or at all)

Re: Count Words?

On 6/16/2018 12:15 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: I stand corrected. Thanks. This architecture has grown beyond human ken. Let the compiler do it, and hope the compiler author gets it right. It's still understandable and VERY usable in hand-written code for real HLASM programmers. It just

Re: Count Words?

On 6/14/2018 6:18 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Oops! From PoOps: Proceeding from left to right, the elements of the second operand are compared with the corresponding elements of the third operand and optionally with zero. "Corresponding element" is the problem. If the second

Re: Count Words?

On 6/14/2018 5:44 PM, Robin Vowels wrote: - Original Message - From: "Ed Jaffe" Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 5:34 AM BY FAR the fastest way HANDS DOWN -- if you're looking for 16 or fewer characters -- is with the vector instructions... How many words can you fit into 16

Re: Count Words?

On 6/14/2018 3:05 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote: LA R1,0(R15,1R1) Of course, I intended to type LA R1,0(R15,R1) -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com

Re: Count Words?

On 6/14/2018 1:50 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: Any way you could share a code example? Or at least pseudo code for the technique? Use VL to load 16 one-byte search arguments into (for example) V0 Use VLL to load 16 bytes (or how ever many remain if <16) of the string into (for example)

Re: Count Words?

BY FAR the fastest way HANDS DOWN -- if you're looking for 16 or fewer characters -- is with the vector instructions... On 6/14/2018 12:18 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Is there a modern, clever, efficient way to count words in a string where: o A separator is or (+ others ad lib.) o A word is a

Re: BAKR Instruction

On 5/28/2018 2:57 PM, Peter Relson wrote: -- You might find that use of BAKR by the caller poses an unnecessary dependency between the caller and the callee. Consider the alternative of calling via BASR, and the callee deciding whether to save/restore regs via BAKR/PR or via

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

On 4/23/2018 12:41 AM, Jonathan Scott wrote: [snip] It would have been possible for HLASM to provide a simple fix for the 20-bit dependent USING case but we were holding it back because we felt that compatibility considerations could limit our options for a more general solution which was being

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

On 4/22/2018 8:20 PM, Charles Mills wrote: or I would not have posted! Well, I've seen dumber questions. Haha! So have I, but this is *ME* we're talking about! Just saying... LOL -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245

Re: Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

On 4/22/2018 7:45 PM, Charles Mills wrote: And if you make the filler X'4000' rather than X'8000', then it assembles without error? Haha! Indeed ... or I would not have posted! This post is, of course, a simplified illustration of the problem. The real world case that brought this to light

Dependent USING Does Not Work as Documented

    00 01 210 TinyArea DSECT , .00  211 TinyFlag DS   XL1 .    213  END   , Is there any way to make this work as documented? Thanks, Ed Jaffe -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview

Terminal Talk Podcast

Listen to me being interviewed on the Terminal Talk Podcast with Frank DeGilio and Jeff Bisti! Amazingly, I didn't say anything that needed to be bleeped out! LOL http://terminaltalk.net/PodcastGenerator/?name=2018-03-25_episode_41_-_ed_jaffe_-_phoenix_software_-_3_26_2018.mp3 -- Phoenix

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

On 1/22/2018 7:44 AM, Jon Perryman wrote: If anyone tells you C is superior to HLASM, don't believe it. I agree with a lot of what you've written. We use SPMs for our coding (with FLOWASM of course) and a LOT of powerful macros for calling services, building tables, etc. One thing I do

Re: Dynalloc (was Macro processor)

On 12/23/2017 8:18 AM, Jon Perryman wrote: People are clever and will find ways to abuse things if they are motivated. Dynalloc can easily be exploited. It's not exploited because no one has been motivated to exploit it. Security risks are big news in this century and there have been some

Re: LT Instruction After Compare And Swap

On 12/19/2017 1:16 PM, Charles Mills wrote: Isn't there some issue with using SUSPEND or RESUME if the caller of the code in question might hold locks and you have no control over that (such as in a system exit)? Haha! Yes, and that applies to WAIT and PAUSE as well. The secret is to

Re: LT Instruction After Compare And Swap

On 12/18/2017 6:02 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: I wouldn't want to have to argue the case for having an enabled application program do spin loops. But we don't know the context this code was found in; maybe it's part of an OS or a standalone program. In my entire IT career, most of which has been

Re: LT Instruction After Compare And Swap

On 12/18/2017 2:45 PM, esst...@juno.com wrote: In the code fragment above why is the LT (Load and Test) instruction necessary ? What was the author trying to accomplish after Compare and Swap ? This is a spin lock, not a suspend lock. -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831

Re: Posting

On 12/14/2017 12:03 PM, MELVYN MALTZ wrote: Did you receive the original post ? If not...why ? Irrelevant. Every spam filter is unique. Your experience with your particular spam filter is unique to you on no one else... -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive

Re: Address of a Literal

On 12/9/2017 3:38 PM, Phil Smith wrote: Of course, so-called "high-level" languages like C should be so lucky as to have the power of assembler macros! Their idea of a "macro" is really quite primitive. Agreed! HLASM macros might very well be the most powerful pre-processor language in

Re: Access registers

On 12/3/2017 8:44 PM, Sudershan Ravi wrote: Hi, Why do we use access registers? Because it would damn-near impossible to reference data spaces and other address spaces without them. LOL -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245

Re: BDAM files

On 11/27/2017 11:52 AM, John McKown wrote: ​Well, I don't do much basic I/O, so maybe I'm confused. But doesn't an AMODE(31) program require more work than AMODE(24) or maybe I'm thinking RMODE(31)? Or is that just for QSAM program (DCBE and so forth)?​ Back in the day, you had to be in

Re: BDAM files

On 11/27/2017 11:22 AM, John McKown wrote: ​BDAM is a "traditional" access method, like BSAM. So it cannot be _easily_ used by AMODE(31),RMODE(31) programs. Wht?! AMODE(31) callers were supported by the very, very first release of DFSMS! Gosh I can't remember how many decades ago that

Re: BDAM files

On 11/27/2017 10:48 AM, Sudershan Ravi wrote: Why BDAM files are infrequently used? what are the complexities we face when we do Direct Access of a file. Before 3390s, disk geometry used to change every few years. That caused a lot of folks to switch to VSAM. -- Phoenix Software

Re: A modest proposal: LE enabled HLASM + C runtime

On 11/19/2017 9:45 AM, Charles Mills wrote: Subtract? Sort of. My impression -- and I would be happy if someone could definitively confirm or correct me -- is that leap seconds are of course subtracted from the TOD value, but the value in CVTLSO is negative, so adding CVTLSO subtracts the leap

Re: ASCII self-defining constants

On 10/18/2017 1:19 AM, Jonathan Scott wrote: ... We normally use code page 1047 for product code anyway, where square brackets are hex AD and BD as in TEXT code pages and the C/370 compiler. I think that the ASCII translation should probably use 819 rather than 7-bit ASCII as the target code

Re: Rehabilitated TROT Routine (Was: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code)

On 10/12/2017 7:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote: FWIW, we use local proprietary SPM set, so the syntax and expansions aren't likely to be exactly like IBM's or yours. We use IBM's. I heavily modified them and distributed those modifications to interested parties back in the day. Eventually, IBM

Re: Rehabilitated TROT Routine (Was: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code)

On 10/11/2017 2:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote: The equivalent I have is DOWHILE,TROT,R14,R2,B'0001' -- the last operand could be O, or it could be an UNTIL loop with NO (and any other typical condition). But we allow bare condition-code masks, too, especially for cases where the mnemonics

Re: Rehabilitated TROT Routine (Was: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code)

On 10/11/2017 12:05 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: The rightmost bits of the register that are not used to form the address, which are bits 61-63 in the doubleword case and bits 52-63 in the 4K-byte case, are ignored but should contain zeros; otherwise, the program may not operate compatibly in the

Re: Rehabilitated TROT Routine (Was: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code)

On 10/11/2017 12:05 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: What do the DO and ENDDO macros do here? Do they generate a test for CC=3 and loop? That seems like a lot of assumption to build into a DO macro... .4506 B982    36995 ¦ XGR   R0,R0    Ensure no stop char .

Rehabilitated TROT Routine (Was: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code)

On 10/10/2017 1:52 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote: Actually, that clarification is worth the cost of this exercise. So in this particular case, so long as R0 isn't any of the obvious two-character values C'00' - C'FF' it should work! Thanks to input from Tony Harminc and others, we have rehabilitated

Re: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code

On 10/10/2017 12:20 PM, Steve Smith wrote: D*** it, I used to know that! Great catch. Rewind all that about CC=1. In *this* case, purely from a technical POV. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: So it's the table *output* characters that are matched

Re: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code

On 10/10/2017 10:47 AM, Tony Harminc wrote: Ironically, for this example, assuming the table is the standard one that converts each byte to its 2-byte hex character representation, the mask bit will never make any difference to the processing at any architectural level. You *do* have to ensure

Re: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code

On 10/10/2017 6:54 AM, Steve Smith wrote: IF the code to handle CC=1 is there, then you are right. There was no such code, but that would be a case where "above board" use of ACONTROL OPTABLE with surrounding PUSH/POP would be condoned. As we raise our hardware minimums, we scan for ACONTROL

Re: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code

On 10/10/2017 7:45 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Slightly more feasible would be an option on LOCTR declaring that only code or only data may oppear governed by that LOCTR, and that code LOCTRs must not be overwritten. I LIKE that!!! Some non-z architectures have additional segment protection

Re: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code

On 10/10/2017 2:49 AM, retired mainframer wrote: Has your legal team considered the possibility of industrial sabotage? It would be pretty hard to argue that this defective code was accidental. It's funny. Someone joked about that just yesterday, wondering if this person was collecting two

Re: Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code

On 10/9/2017 10:05 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Obviously, the right way to code this would have been to use ACONTROL OPTABLE with surrounding PUSH/POP to get the newer TROT function. ... Why would that be right? It's still inserting an instruction unsupported at a hardware level you intend

Detection of Compile-Time Self-Modifying Code

Like most ISVs writing HLASM code, we use OPTABLE to ensure our programmers don't accidentally use instructions that aren't available on older machines that we must still support. Currently, we're using OPTABLE(YOP) because our minimum supported OS is z/OS 1.12. (It's not until z/OS 2.1 that

Re: interesting, to me, new z14 instruction: BIC

On 9/15/2017 10:37 AM, Richard Kuebbing wrote: Not just an adcon but a "real address"! In real mode only. A virtual address otherwise... -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

Re: PLO

On 8/12/2017 3:35 PM, Charles Mills wrote: Or phrasing the issue differently, I now have working queue management code using CSG and CSST. It is hard for me to envision how TBEGIN would be so advantageous that I would tear into this (tricky!) working code and re-write it for a second logic

Re: PLO

On 8/12/2017 2:20 PM, Charles Mills wrote: Let me volunteer to be the dumb one here. Note that use of transactional processing is inherently dual path. You would still need the "other" path even if every machine in the world already supported TBEGIN. Why? A non-constrained transaction

Re: PLO

On 8/11/2017 6:31 AM, Blaicher, Christopher Y. wrote: PLO is an expensive instruction. It can do a little or a lot. There are about 10 pages in the POP to describe it. However, until transactional processing is supported in all environments, ISV's, who never know what environment they are

Re: Question about CPUs

On 7/30/2017 9:57 PM, Charles Mills wrote: Until the z13 (?), for example, NI, OI and XI were interruptible within a reference to a single byte. NI is actually fetch, AND, store. It could be interrupted between the fetch and the store. So two processors doing NI or OI on the same byte could get

Re: Question about CPUs

On 7/30/2017 6:32 PM, Phil Smith wrote: Robert Netzloff wrote: Not sure, but is not MVCL interruptible? Yes, that one is. Good catch! I've seen it happen, too. Makes sense: you MVCL more than one page, and one of them is paged out, so it has to stop while the page fault happens and it comes

Re: LOC=64 executable code?

On 7/28/2017 2:29 PM, Ngan, Robert wrote: There were severe restrictions on LOC=64 code before (mainly, must be non-interruptible) Those restrictions were lifted six years ago beginning with z/OS 1.13. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo,

Re: LOC=64 executable code?

On 7/27/2017 5:14 PM, Ngan, Robert wrote: Just noticed that the z/OS 2.3 manuals mention EXECUTABLE=YES|NO parameter for IARV64 GETSTOR requests. Anyone have a summary of what kinds of code we can move above the bar in z/OS 2.3? You can move code that invokes no services or invokes only

Re: Save areas (not XPLINK).

On 6/12/2017 7:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Doesn't the multiplicity of linkage conventions severely erode the usefulness of tracebacks found in dumps? Or is there a one-fits-all dump formatter that can recognize the various save area formats found in a multi-language job step and make sense

Re: Save areas (not XPLINK).

On 6/12/2017 6:40 AM, Steve Smith wrote: Regardless of the meaning of "standard", IBM does provide the IHASAVER macro to assist with those choices. I routinely make save areas 18D (or update from 18F) these days. I make mine 36D to cover whatever format might be used now or in the future...

Re: Did IBM replace all format RXE with RXY ?

On 1/17/2017 7:38 AM, somitcw wrote: Does IBM plan to back-off the change from RXE to RXY and go in a different direction or are they just sloppy about keeping the first part of the manual insync with the rest? According to Dan Greiner, the Principles of Operation is accurate and IBM is

Re: Finding Dave Bond

On 12/8/2016 10:35 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: He lives in Switzerland and works for L^z Labs -- the latest John Moores kill-the-mainframe endeavor... Haha! That superscripted 'z' didn't quite work in plain text. Anyway, their web site URL is https://www.lzlabs.com/ -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix

Re: Finding Dave Bond

He lives in Switzerland and works for L^z Labs -- the latest John Moores kill-the-mainframe endeavor... On 12/8/2016 1:36 AM, David Cole wrote: I guess for most people, this is old new, but I've learned only recently that Dave Bond is no longer involved at TachyonSoft. Does anyone know how to

Re: z/OS Bug Busterz SHARE Academy in San Jose

That page has been corrected so the "Click to Register" button now goes to the right place... On 11/16/2016 8:26 AM, Martin Truebner wrote: To be percise the button for "register now" points to: http://www.share.org/share-san-jose-2017-event-registration-start which is wrong to some extent

z/OS Bug Busterz SHARE Academy in San Jose

The z/OS Bug Busterz SHARE Academy in Atlanta was a tremendous success, but there was room for more attendees. Many folks complained to me throughout the week that they didn't hear about this amazing, Sunday deep-dive intensive until _after_ their travel plans were already made and asked if

Re: SRST Performance

On 10/18/2016 9:11 AM, Martin Truebner wrote: I would expect SRST to be faster - but have no data to prove it. SRST is much, much faster than TRT but still orders of magnitude slower than the vector instructions. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North

Re: Not Understanding 0C4-03B

On 8/29/2016 3:54 PM, esst...@juno.com wrote: I thought LLGTR ensured a proper 64Bit Address LLGT and LLGTR ensure a good 64-bit representation of a 31-bit address by setting bits 0-33 to zeros. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA

Re: Friday puzzle: CNOP 1,2

On 8/19/2016 11:47 AM, Ngan, Robert wrote: Yes, I could use LAY instead of LARL LAY requires base register coverage, so it's not really an acceptable substitute for LARL. , or I could use an aligned halfword length (which is what I've ended up doing for now). We pretty much always code

Re: IBM Diassembler

On 8/16/2016 4:01 PM, Joseph Reichman wrote: Can the IBM disassembler be invoked By a another method then submitting a job The disassembler I use most often these days is IPCS. IP LIST address INSTR can disassemble any code found in a dump or active memory. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix

Re: better way? C language x'00' delimited string.

On 6/28/2016 11:36 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: Another good reason to use a macro. The macro could include: PUSH PRINT PRINT NOGEN bla bla bla POP PRINT Or even: PUSH PRINT,NOPRINT PRINT NOGEN,NOPRINT bla bla bla POP

Re: Structured Programming Macros

On 5/17/2016 11:11 AM, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: ... there is only one base register which covers the area after ENDPROC, allowing for up to 4 k of local static variables Assuming your programs use 20-bit displacements like ours do, then you're really talking about 4K for areas that must be

Re: Storage Question

On 4/18/2016 7:38 AM, Peter Relson wrote: Loop IEANTRT to retrieve the token If RC indicates "token exists" then Leave loop Else if bad-RC then error-exit Obtain and fill in storage Set up 16 byte token to locate that storage IEANTCR to create the name/token If RC

Re: Microprocessor Optimization Primer

On 4/4/2016 7:24 AM, Gary Weinhold wrote: Even if there's no actual performance difference for these instructions, wouldn't the "not setting the CC" possibly improve the pipeline, since the hardware knows the next conditional branch does not have to wait for this instruction to be evaluated

Re: Csect - Dsect Question

On 3/31/2016 2:03 PM, Tom Marchant wrote: ITYM R0. Indeed! And the manual doesn't specify that the address returned is a clean 64-bit address except if it is AMODE 64. So I'd suggest replacing the NILH with LLGTR R0,R0 Empirical testing shows R0 is returned with a clean 64-bit

Re: Csect - Dsect Question

On 3/30/2016 7:05 AM, Scott Ford wrote: I have a need to create message table, with the following attributes: 1. MSGID = 9 chars 2. Length of msg 3. Message I would like this "tab;e" in loose terms to be external. I have never done external dsects. Am in right i can do that , create a external

Re: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest - 6 Jan 2016 to 8 Jan 2016 (#2016-7)

On 1/11/2016 4:18 PM, John Walker wrote: How does BPAM relate to BTAM? I was looking at this and finding a great similarity to old-fashioned PC basic dynamic reads. Can this be used on any modern mainframe? IBM stopped shipping BTAM years ago but, if you've kept the libraries around, it

Re: BPAM multiple members/one DCB and EODAD exit?

On 1/8/2016 4:21 PM, Thomas David Rivers wrote: I'm quite willing to "live" with that, but the driving of the EOD exit is the real "big" thing at the moment... I think that might not get reset until the next FIND DE=. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview

Re: Use of LQ results in ASMA080E?!

On 1/5/2016 8:49 AM, mar...@pi-sysprog.de wrote: one can use the HLASM on z/OS (it's there anyway) and then use your "binder/linker" to produce stuff that can then be processed by LNKEDT in z/VSE We run HLASM on z/OS (it's there anyway) and send the object decks via NJE to a VSE system for

Use of LQ results in ASMA080E?!

Check this out... Try to assemble the following test program. Attempts to use AIALENTH as a duplication factor fail with 'ASMA080E Statement is unresolvable' while BIALENTH works just fine. Why? AIADSECT DSECT , AIAVRS DS0CL512 DS32LQ AIALENTH EQU *-AIADSECT BIADSECT

Re: Assembler exercise - MAX of two or more equates

On 6/17/2015 2:55 PM, David Cole wrote: Excellent! Just stuff that into an ignorable dsect, and there you go! I never thought of this method. Very creative. We use the same basic technique in a robust set of macro-based math functions to to ensure one EQU is greater or less than another, to

Option to Prevent Data Loss Due to Truncation of Nominal Value

A working program had the following code: 018000 MVC 0(8,R1),=CL8'EJESPOP' Set command name 018010 MVC 8(8,R1),=CL8'PATHNAME'Set command parameter An overzealous programmer, trying to be helpful, changed it to: 018000 MVC

Re: SHARE Video

On 3/9/2015 8:29 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Nice cameos, Ed... they wouldn't give you a vocal part? :-) Thanks! No vocal part, but they did triple my volunteer salary. ;) -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245

SHARE Video

If you weren't at SHARE in Seattle, you missed an incredible event. You also missed this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpNfinTuPz4 -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

Re: Macro to generate DS or DC

On 10/3/2014 6:22 AM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: I can see how the displacement between CSECTS can be computed by the Assembler but this displacement can be wrong once the object deck is link-edited/bound since the order of the CSECTS are not fixed. Unless the LARL references RLDs (and thus

Re: Macro to generate DS or DC

On 10/3/2014 8:36 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Would the programmer be well-advised to use Binder ORDER commands lest SMP/E service reorder CSECTs and move a target out of relative addressing range? Unnecessary. LARL and its ilk have an addressing range considerably wider than the largest

Re: Macro to generate DS or DC

On 10/3/2014 1:10 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Oops! I had thought program objects could be up to 16M; relative addressing limited to +-1M. Which is wrong? (Both?) You might be thinking of 20-bit (i.e., long) displacements, which have a range of 1M (512K in each direction). LARL and its ilk

Re: Macro to generate DS or DC

On 10/3/2014 2:35 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Does RMODE(SPLIT) work between RMODE(24) and RMODE(64)? That could very quickly get a 4GiB reach. No. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

Defunct? (Was: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest)

On 10/1/2014 6:53 AM, John Walker wrote: This is pretty much a defunct area, isn't it? No. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

Re: Abbreviation and truncation (was: ... macros ...)

On 7/29/2014 11:09 AM, Hall, Keven wrote: I imagine a more fanciful set of rules was responsible for the single-letter abbreviations of the system commands. P is the last letter of STOP; it's where it stops and the p sound is distinct... Haha. Or, simply working forward alphabetically, 'S'

Re: The rationale for using macros i

On 7/25/2014 8:17 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On 2014-07-25, at 08:40, John Gilmore wrote: We disagree, sharply. The abbreviation of long keyword/set element values using the notion of a case-independent disambiguating truncation is 1) convenient and 2) easy to teach in the sense that

Re: The rationale for using macros i

On 7/28/2014 6:43 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: I think we agree to a point. What about in a pedagogic context? If you were writing an example in a manual for a novice operator, would you write: CANCEL J(1234) or: C J(1234) My preference in documentation tends toward using the

Re: Local Time conversion to/from UTC Time

On 7/9/2014 11:04 PM, Jim Mulder wrote: Upon closer inspection, the code dealing with CVTLSO and CVTLDTO is on a path used only for TIME with LINKAGE=SYSTEM. STCKCONV does not do anything with CVTLDTO and CVTLSO, or attempt any kind of leap second or time zone adjustment. THANK GOD!! You

Re: Common Storage

On 7/5/2014 6:32 AM, esst...@juno.com wrote: Well yes this is MVS-ish, And regarding the use of Key 9. Using KEY 9 is interesting however isnt that similiar to using KEY 8. I mention that because several years ago there was a SHARE presentaion on security and it frowned upon the use of Key 8

Re: Common Storage

On 7/5/2014 5:30 AM, esst...@juno.com wrote: I know this has been discussed before ... I need to obtain storage from Common say subpool 241 .. I also need non-authorized programs to fetch(access this storage) but not store (update) tis common storage. Can someone suggest an appropriate storage

Re: Local Time conversion to/from UTC Time

On 6/27/2014 4:20 PM, Hardee, Chuck wrote: Does anyone have any algorithms or code for converting Local Time to UTC Time and vice versa taking Daylight Savings Time into account that they would be willing to share? My preference would be Assembler but COBOL, PL/I, Fortran, Pascal, etc would

<    1   2   3   >