Re: HLASM "Anomaly"

2017-03-25 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On 2017-03-25, at 13:30, Peter Relson wrote: > > We often choose to live with the poor decisions that we might have made on > initial implementation because compatibility is a huge strength of our > platform. > But beware lest that platform collapse under the accumulated weight of those

Re: HLASM "Anomaly"

2017-03-25 Thread Peter Relson
Regarding the lengthy discussion of immediate operands and whether there should be warnings or errors, I will point out that there is next to zero chance that the assembler will unconditionally change its rules in this regard, as that could cause currently working JCL to fail (I'm with Charles

Re: HLASM "Anomaly"

2017-03-25 Thread Charles Mills
Different PTFs CharlesSent from a mobile; please excuse the brevity. Original message From: Peter Relson Date: 3/25/17 11:16 AM (GMT-08:00) To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: HLASM "Anomaly" My "favorite" is the warning you get when the

Re: HLASM "Anomaly"

2017-03-25 Thread Peter Relson
My "favorite" is the warning you get when the target of your JAS/BRAS shifts to an offset more that 64K from the instruction. You only get a ASMA320W warning (when would this not be an error?), and at execution time the truncated immediate offset branches you to some arbitrary address! Am I

Re: HLASM "Anomaly"

2017-03-25 Thread Steve Smith
Well, good news! That was a nasty little issue. On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Jonathan Scott wrote: > Ref: Your note of Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:34:21 + > > This was fixed over a year ago. Since APAR PI34981 in early > 2016, a relative immediate operand which

Re: HLASM "Anomaly"

2017-03-25 Thread Jonathan Scott
Ref: Your note of Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:34:21 + This was fixed over a year ago. Since APAR PI34981 in early 2016, a relative immediate operand which is out of range gives error message ASMA223E. Robert Ngan wrote: > My "favorite" is the warning you get when the target of your > JAS/BRAS