The syntax for AND and OR operators in the Strcutured Programming Macros is
differs slightly between the UNTIL= and WHILE= options of the DO macro and
every other SPM macro that supports conditions. This is not only very confusing
but I was just bitten by the fact that the DO macro may silently
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:23:48 +0100 Fred van der Windt
fred.van.der.wi...@mail.ing.nl wrote:
:The syntax for AND and OR operators in the Strcutured Programming Macros is
differs slightly between the UNTIL= and WHILE= options of the DO macro and
every other SPM macro that supports conditions. This
:But why is this error not properly signalled?
Because it wasn't coded to do it.
Anyway, I asked the 'right person in our organization' to report it to IBM as a
bug in the HLASM Toolkit.
Fred!
-
ATTENTION:
The information in
What good is the long displacement instruction set without MVC[Y] and CLC[Y]?
What do the compilers use?
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
Ouch! Otiose tokens should not be silently ignored. Would:
DO UNTIL=((CR,R1,LT,R2),AND,(CR,R3,LT,R4))
.. have produced the intended result?
Yes it does:
DO UNTIL=((CR,R1,LT,R2),AND,(CR,R3,LT,R4))
+...@lb2 DC 0H
:
:
ENDDO
+...@lb3
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 3:42 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Long Displacements - What Good Are They?
What good is the long displacement
On 12/3/2010 12:59 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
C/C++ (and MetalC) will use the latest and greatest architecture instructions
for ARCH(8),TUNE(8) (at V1R10, for z10) or ARCH(9),TUNE(9) (at V1R12 for z196)
compiler options. Enterprise COBOL never does. I don't have access to
Enterprise
Inelegant, but how about (worst case):
LAY Rx,Target
LAY Ry,Source
MVC 0(L'Source,Rx),0(Ry)
It still eliminates the need to dedicate base registers, as long as you can
manage to have or make two registers available.
The compilers are pretty good at conserving and/or reusing
Trouble comes when the SPMs are used by people who do not/cannot write macro
definitions.
Ah.
So if I code a macro invocation with parameters that do not meet the documented
specification of that macro, but the macro ignores the incorrect parameters and
uses the remaining parameters to
On 2010-12-03 14:45, Fred van der Windt wrote:
Trouble comes when the SPMs are used by people who do not/cannot write macro
definitions.
Ah.
So if I code a macro invocation with parameters that do not meet the documented
specification of that macro, but the macro ignores the incorrect
On 12/3/2010 1:44 PM, Gary DiPillo wrote:
Inelegant, but how about (worst case):
LAY Rx,Target
LAY Ry,Source
MVC 0(L'Source,Rx),0(Ry)
Worst case indeed. The AGI on a code fragment like this is terrible (though I
suspect LAY has the same pipeline bypass that LA has). I suppose
On 12/3/2010 2:27 PM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 12/3/2010 12:59 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
C/C++ (and MetalC) will use the latest and greatest architecture instructions
for ARCH(8),TUNE(8) (at V1R10, for z10) or ARCH(9),TUNE(9) (at V1R12 for z196)
compiler options. Enterprise COBOL never
To someone writing performance code, and why else would you be writing
assembler, MVCL/CLCL/etc are terrible instructions performance-wise unless you
are moving over 32K of data.
In answer to the original question, there is no space in the instruction to add
the bits. Changing the system to
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Gary DiPillo
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:44 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Long Displacements - What Good Are They?
Snipped
The compilers are
On 12/3/2010 2:58 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
If any competent assembler programmer ever looks at COBOL-generated code they
invariably choke on their coffee and donut, since it is the most awful code
they have ever seen.
I've not looked at COBOL-generated code. I've looked at the code
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 6:26 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Long Displacements - What Good Are They?
On 12/3/2010 2:58 PM, Farley,
16 matches
Mail list logo
