On 2018-05-30, at 06:13:04, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
> But if your callers are all AMODE 24 or 31, and use BASR or BALR to call you,
> and the BALR is not the target of an Execute instruction, the linkage
> information is adequate for return via BSM.
>
> In all of these cases, if your caller is
On Wed, 30 May 2018 07:40:27 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>One point about "phasing in" BASSM: it does not work in general. Sure, if
>you "phase in" by changing all the callers at the same time, that works.
That's true Peter. There are cases where the approach that I suggested do
not work. Most
One point about "phasing in" BASSM: it does not work in general. Sure, if
you "phase in" by changing all the callers at the same time, that works.
That is because the target program, if it wants to protect some potential
calling possibilities needs to capture the current AMODE so that the value
. Blaicher
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 2:12 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu
Subject: Re: BAKR Instruction
A quick test of performance shows that BAKR/PR is about 14 times as expensive
as STM/LM.
I would say that in in initialization/termination code using BAKR/PR isn't
going to hurt you, but I
On 29/05/18 19:12, Christopher Y. Blaicher wrote:
A quick test of performance shows that BAKR/PR is about 14 times as
expensive as STM/LM.
I would say that in in initialization/termination code using BAKR/PR
isn't going to hurt you, but I would totally avoid it in record level
code.
How
-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 2:00 PM
To: MVS List Server 2
Subject: Re: BAKR Instruction
*Any* choice of linkage conventions imposes a dependency between the caller and
the callee.
BTW, this is an example of why I prefer to encapsulate such things
Assembler List on behalf
of Peter Relson
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 5:57 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu
Subject: Re: BAKR Instruction
Some things to think about:
-- Recovery routines and retry points are tied to specific linkage stack
levels in the general case. Use of BAKR as a linkage can
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Dan Greiner
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 7:49 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu
Subject: Re: BAKR Instruction
Mr. Relson's warnings on the performance of BAKR/PR warrant some additional
comment.
1. A well-tuned subroutine call
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: BAKR Instruction
Hi, Dan,
I hope all continues well with you. Has retirement kept you busy?
We hope to see Howard in late June, if he ever answers his emails!
Could you send me the powerpoint for this presentation. I have the pdf, but
i always
In defense of BAKR/PR, please note that while it is a pig (relatively) it
is a very useful pig. As mentioned before, in most cases the extra
overhead likely won't matter much. We use it in a pretty big code-base
that wanders through every mode swing you can think of. It's very useful
that when
On Mon, 28 May 2018 17:06:14 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:
>might I respectfully suggest BASSM/BSM
>linkage be used instead of BASR/BR?
Good advice, IMO. And note that the linkage information provided by BALR
and BASR is such that it is safe to use BSM when returning to a calling
program that used
Hi, Dan,
I hope all continues well with you. Has retirement kept you busy?
We hope to see Howard in late June, if he ever answers his emails!
Could you send me the powerpoint for this presentation. I have the pdf,
but i always appreciated the powerpoint.
Regards, Gary
On 2018-05-28
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
Mr. Relson's warnings on the performance of BAKR/PR warrant some additional
comment.
1. A well-tuned subroutine call can limit the number of registers that are
saved/restored. BAKR/PR saves/restores all 16 general-purpose registers, and
it always saves all 64-bits of the register, even if the
Some things to think about:
-- Recovery routines and retry points are tied to specific linkage stack
levels in the general case. Use of BAKR as a linkage can complicate that.
-- BAKR/PR is slower than using a typical savearea linkage.
-- You might find that use of BAKR by the caller poses an
You want BAKR 0,R15. Read the PoOp (closely) to understand why.
sas
On 5/27/2018 19:10, esst...@juno.com wrote:
Hi,
.
Question About the BAKR Instruction
.
...
.
Any Ideas as to how to proceed.
.
Paul D'Angelo
.
.
this would
explain the behavior that you're seeing. The value in the register denoted
by operand 1 (in this case R14) is unaffected by the BAKR instruction.
HTH,
Gary
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> On
Behalf Of esst...@juno.com
S
Hi,
.
Question About the BAKR Instruction
.
.
I thought I understood the BAKR instruction.
.
I load the address of a load module into Register 15
Then I issue a BAKR R14,R15
.
My understanding is that a Linkage stack entry is created
And The PSW would be updated with the Address in R15 (operand 2
18 matches
Mail list logo
