I dont use this technique.
Could you explain this a bit more.
is X. any Variable ? Or a Label ?
-- Original Message --
From: Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA303W
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:18:50 -0500
What don't you use
The length in R3 was the length of a CHAR VARYING passed as a parameter,
and it was tested to be positive and not zero before issuing the BCTR
(was BALR,
should be BCTR).
In fact, I believe that BCTR Rx,0 is the most natural choice to do the
length reduction
by one before issuing an EXed MVC,
ASMA303W Multiple address resolutions may result from this USING and the
USING on statement number
Instead of trying to suppress the warning message, it might be better to
eliminate the situation which is causing it. In my case, I was able to stop
this message by putting an end label on the
From: Gerhard Postpischil gerh...@valley.net
Date: Sunday, 12 February 2012 13:45
On 2/12/2012 5:44 PM, robin wrote:
In this case, BCTR is inappropriate, because the length can be zero,
and use of SH provides the means to test for negative and to skip
the MVC (or CLC).
You're drawing an
The HLASM Language Reference contains full discussions of labeled and
dependent USINGs. There are also lucid discussions of them, complete
with perspicuous examples, in John Ehrman's SHARE presentations.
They--and, yes, labeled dependent USINGs too--comprise a powerful
facility for avoiding
Again, context is all. Bernd's point,
Man muss übrigens nicht mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schießen.
is well taken (Bowdlerized, it is overkill to launch a torpedo at a
canoe, even if you sink it.)
Still, I do have a MOVECHRS macro that optimizes, generates MVC, MVC
loops, MVCLE, etc., as
On 2/13/2012 7:16 AM, robin wrote:
The programming world is littered with it can't happen cases.
Everyone knows Murphy's Law (If anything can go wrong, it will).
But not many have heard of Robert's Law? (Even if it can't go wrong, it will.)
So, even it the length were tested prior, one can't
On Feb 13, 2012, at 05:16, robin wrote:
The programming world is littered with it can't happen cases.
Everyone knows Murphy's Law (If anything can go wrong, it will).
But not many have heard of Robert's Law? (Even if it can't go wrong, it
will.)
So, even it the length were tested prior,
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:42:54 -0700 Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
wrote:
:On Feb 13, 2012, at 05:16, robin wrote:
: The programming world is littered with it can't happen cases.
: Everyone knows Murphy's Law (If anything can go wrong, it will).
: But not many have heard of Robert's Law?
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
begin snippet
Hardware detection of arithmetic exceptions is a boon here. But one
ISV C compiler requires that the generated code be run with
fixed-point overflow interrupts disabled. Shame on the vendor!
/end snippet
I agree with this sentiment, but the blame must be
There was a little misunderstanding on my part;
I thought that robin suggested the decrement by one should be done
using a macro, which made no sense to me.
Of course, a macro which does the whole VARCHAR move makes much
more sense.
But still: as John Gilmore pointed out, such a macro should
There was a time when even C/370 code and certain LE functions
abended with 0C8, if the fixed point overflow mask bit was enabled;
some LE functions and even compiler generated code tried to clear registers
by arithmetic shift left !!
When calling C/370 functions from PL/1 with FIXEDOVERFLOW or
There seems to be a common misconception that MVC can't move 256 bytes.
It certainly can. It cannot move zero bytes, but that's not much of a
limitation.
On 2/12/2012 17:45, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
There was a little misunderstanding on my part;
I thought that robin suggested the decrement by
13 matches
Mail list logo
