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
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
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
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
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
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