Over on IBM-MAIN there is a discussion on linkage conventions, which was
started by me, initially about changing an HLASM program to be RENT. But
all the back and forth about the right way to implement a linkage
convention has made we want a couple of new instructions, which exist on
many other
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:24:53 -0500, John McKown wrote:
A hardware PUSHR and POPR (R suffix to avoid conflict
with existing PUSH POP) which can PUSH and POP the general and access
registers onto a stack. This would require a hardware stack, similar to the
Linkage Stack used by PC/PR/BAKR, but one
I fail to see the difference between what you are asking for and BAKR/PR.
BAKR and PC already do a 'hardware' save of the 64-bit registers into
storage that is not accessable by the application. I personally have never
seen a Stack-Full condition and your new instructions could still suffer
from
On 6/27/2013 9:00 AM, Bohn, Dale wrote:
The ONLY difference I do
see is your wish to use it in SRB mode. I would think that the setup
overhead for using ANY type of PUSHR or BAKR for a SRB could significently
slow down a process that is meant to be fast.
We issue BAKR/PR in SRB mode all the
Well, I should have double checked the PoPS. Even if everybody thought this
was an excellent idea (which they don't), all the current Control Registers
0-15 are in use. So there isn't one available to hold the Register Stack
value. So it would require a special purpose instruction, like SET
CC has made my point better than I did.
For reasons that I have never really understood assembly-language
programmers almost always use heap storage for DSAs instead of the
stack storage they should use. (Their failure to use an extension of
such a stack-based DSA for scratch/automatic/local
As we had been using the stack storage concept since the late 1970's, with a suite of entry, exit, calland DSA macros, it was relatively easy to make all of our assembler programs LE-compliant for our 1998 release. For most assembler programmers, however, the thought of LE seems akin to entering
@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Betreff: Re: wish? for two new instructions.
As we had been using the stack storage concept since the late 1970's, with a
suite of entry, exit, call and DSA macros, it was relatively easy to make all
of our assembler programs LE-compliant for our 1998 release. For most
assembler
, no one's perfect.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im
Auftrag von John Gilmore
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Juni 2013 19:28
An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Betreff: Re: wish? for two new instructions.
CC has made my
Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im
Auftrag von Steve Comstock
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Juni 2013 21:12
An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Betreff: Re: wish? for two new instructions.
On 6/27/2013 12:55 PM, David P de Jongh wrote:
As we had been using the stack
On 6/27/2013 12:55 PM, David P de Jongh wrote:
As we had been using the stack storage concept since the late 1970's, with a
suite of entry, exit, call and DSA macros, it was relatively easy to make all of
our assembler programs LE-compliant for our 1998 release. For most assembler
programmers,
As we had been using the stack storage concept since the late 1970's, with a
suite of entry, exit, call and DSA macros, it was relatively easy to make all
of our assembler programs LE-compliant for our 1998 release. For most
assembler programmers, however, the thought of LE seems akin to
12 matches
Mail list logo
