-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 8:12 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: HLASM vs PoOP for 64-bit load on condition
instructions?
Snipped
I've
On 6/7/2011 9:57 AM, John Ehrman wrote:
Peter Farley noted:
long_quote
I just noticed a conflict between our version of HLASM (z/OS V1.10, HLASM
R1.6 PTF UK59311) and the z/Arch PoOP. When I run ASMA90 with the option
to print the UNIFIED or ZSERIES-5 level instruction tables, the instruction
I am currently OOTO until June 20th. For any issues please send a email to
systo...@rocketsoftware.com.
Thanks.
What would happen if, for example, the hardware designers
invented some new stack manipulations and named them PUSH
and POP?
We would tell them to choose some different name. In general, there is a
modest attempt to search/query for known to be used macros or facilities
that would conflict
I just noticed a conflict between our version of HLASM (z/OS V1.10, HLASM R1.6
PTF UK59311) and the z/Arch PoOP. When I run ASMA90 with the option to print
the UNIFIED or ZSERIES-5 level instruction tables, the instruction mnemonics
for the 64-bit version of the load on condition instructions
Which one is correct?
And Johns answer: The PoP is correct.
Of course- the question itself is heresy
;-)
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at http://www.picapcpu.de
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:27, Martin Trübner wrote:
Which one is correct?
And Johns answer: The PoP is correct.
Of course- the question itself is heresy
What would happen if, for example, the hardware designers
invented some new stack manipulations and named them PUSH
and POP?
-- gil
On 7 June 2011 13:15, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:27, Martin Trübner wrote:
Which one is correct?
And Johns answer: The PoP is correct.
Of course- the question itself is heresy
What would happen if, for example, the hardware designers
invented some
