"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
08/17/2023 02:01:56 PM:
> Oh, I read further and I see the SYSATTRP function will query
it.
> Thanks.
I had a little trouble getting it to work. And apparently you
can't call a built-in function direction in the condition of the AIF
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
08/17/2023 01:57:53 PM:
> OK, I'm game to do something new. I can define it in the DF
macro
> but I don't know how to test for it in the other three macros. Hint?
Oh, I read further and I see the SYSATTRP function will query it.
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
08/17/2023 01:46:42 PM:
> I think the "program type value" would be more appropriate for that
> purpose. Although I don't see much benefit as stated, maybe it could
lead
> to some.
OK, I'm game to do something new. I can define it in the DF
I think the "program type value" would be more appropriate for that
purpose. Although I don't see much benefit as stated, maybe it could lead
to some.
sas
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:19 PM Dave Clark
wrote:
> Sorry, I shouldn't keep using that other thread since we are no
> longer
Sorry, I shouldn't keep using that other thread since we are no
longer talking about the original subject. Anyway...
Now that I'm using my own macro (DF) to generate the equated bit
mask, how does the assembler community feel about using expression-3 in
the EQUate instruction
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
08/16/2023 10:05:25 AM:
> For example, if I limit the macro to validate for binary masks and the
> programmer wants to use hexadecimal masks, they might not be too happy.
> So, if I allow either binary masks OR hexadecimal masks and the
> programmer wants
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
08/17/2023 11:51:39 AM:
> I assume that something like my "BAR+BAZ" requires parsing out the
> individual names and processing each separately. It's easy
> conceptually, but it definitely requires more code in the macros.
OK, I'd call that
I assume that something like my "BAR+BAZ" requires parsing out the individual
names and processing each separately. It's easy conceptually, but it definitely
requires more code in the macros.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
08/17/2023 10:06:50 AM:
> Note that one possible drawback of all these schemes is they don't
easily
> support multiple bit operations. But that's typically not important.
Please explain to me what you mean by "multiple bit operations".
Thanks.
Dave Clark asked
> Where do you draw the line?
You really don't have to draw a line. You give the macro user a way to say
"don't do this checking". You're not trying to "prevent", you're trying to
"help". So if there's a need to do something other than you've accommodated,
let it happen.
Yeah, I was hesitant to go there on this thread, but I have a couple of
flag-intense programs that maintain them in a register (I think of it as my
"control" register). The register immediate instructions provide all the
same operations, with the bonus they operate on 16 bits each. Helper
macros
With some extra work, you could do something like this
NAME FLAGS FOO+BAZ
FOO FLAG X'80'
BAR FLAG X'40'
BAZ FLAG X'20'
...
FON BAR+BAZ
...
FOFF FOO
...
FTM FOO+BAR
or even this
NAME FLAGS HH,[FOO+BAZ]
*
John,
that is correct. Thank you for providing a pointer.
I was under the assumption it was no longer available on the web.
I still view this document as very instructive.
My copy is close at hand, like PoP and HLASM Lang Ref.
Actually, this presentation inspired me to create what I call
13 matches
Mail list logo
