On Dec 30, 2010, at 10:05, Tom Marchant wrote:
quote from HLASM V1R6 Language Reference
5.46.4.3 Range of an ordinary USING instruction
The range of an ordinary USING instruction (called the ordinary
USING range, or simply the USING range) is the 4096 bytes
beginning at the base address
At 12:01 -0700 on 01/01/2011, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: A bug or
a feature?:
On Dec 30, 2010, at 10:05, Tom Marchant wrote:
quote from HLASM V1R6 Language Reference
5.46.4.3 Range of an ordinary USING instruction
The range of an ordinary USING instruction (called the ordinary
USING
BASR 15,0
USING (*,NOMORE1),15
STORAGE RELEASE,ADDR=(4),LENGTH=(0),KEY=9,SP=241
NOMORE1 DS 0H
No one has mentioned, as an aside, that this is not the proper thing to do
for macros such as STORAGE when you have no code addressability.
Simply code, as you should
Peter,
(I feel thrilled that I can correct someone with a signature line like
yours ;-)
No one has mentioned, as an aside, that this is not the proper thing to do
for macros such as STORAGE when you have no code addressability.
I did. The last line in my original post said that:
And before
I have a case where HLASM creates the wrong negative offset in a LAY
instruction.
That was at least my first thought when I cut the program down to
isolate the error, I found that it is caused by the rule- closest base
will be used - but in my particular case I did not get an error
message at
4:01 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: A bug or a feature?
I have a case where HLASM creates the wrong negative offset in a LAY
instruction.
That was at least my first thought when I cut the program down to
isolate the error, I found that it is caused by the rule- closest base
John,
are you saying that the two LAY instructions generate the same offset?
What PTF-Level is your VSE and your HLASM?
Mine is: 4.3 HLASM is at: (PTF UK59313)
HLASM R6.0
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at http://www.picapcpu.de
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Trübner
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:01 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: A bug or a feature?
I have a case where HLASM creates the wrong
List [mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu]
On Behalf Of Martin Trübner
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 8:58 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: A bug or a feature?
John,
are you saying that the two LAY instructions generate the same offset?
What PTF-Level is your VSE and your
On Dec 30, 2010, at 06:58, McKown, John wrote:
That is interesting. It is easily fixed by putting in a DROP 15 statement
after the NOMORE1 labelled instruction. But it makes me wonder about the 20
bit offset (-Y) instructions. I'm used to the offset being a 12 bit unsigned
number. Which
John McK,
Sounds like the USING statement needs an enhancment to allow the
specification of a lower limit since the lower limit is no longer
That would fix it.
But I tend to argue that what I intended to say with the range
specification on the using was exactly that (and no extra range up
John B,
An ASMA303W message, indicating multiple address resolutions, is NOT issued
when a USING of the form USING (from,thru),register-list is issued.
Where did you find that sentence?
--
Martin
Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE
more at http://www.picapcpu.de
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:36:14 +0100, Martin wrote:
One should use the offset off of the only valid/declared
base-register at that point which is 3
Why don't you think that register 15 is a valid base register
for a long-displacement instruction? When you code
USING BASE,3
it is equivalent to
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:31 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: A bug or a feature?
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:36:14 +0100, Martin wrote
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: A bug or a feature?
I have a case where HLASM creates the wrong negative offset in a LAY
instruction.
That was at least my first thought when I cut the program down to
isolate the error, I found that it is caused by the rule- closest base
On Dec 30, 2010, at 13:11, Blaicher, Chris wrote:
The answer comes from the POP manual.
The displacement for LA is treated as a 12-bit
unsigned binary integer. The displacement for LAY is
treated as a 20-bit signed binary integer.
It is perfectly legal and appropriate for the LAY to go
Could you elaborate on this statement?
In some cases the assembler, using 32-bit arithmetic, will generate
instructions that produce mathematically incorrect results in 64-bit
mode.
Expression evaluation is indeed done using 32-bit arithmetic, but I can't
see how that would generate
At 16:35 +0100 on 12/30/2010, Martin =?UTF-8?B?VHLDvGJuZXI=?= wrote
about Re: A bug or a feature?:
John McK,
Sounds like the USING statement needs an enhancment to allow the
specification of a lower limit since the lower limit is no longer
That would fix it.
But I tend to argue that what
At 11:30 -0500 on 12/30/2010, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: A bug or a feature?:
Why don't you think that register 15 is a valid base register
for a long-displacement instruction? When you code
USING BASE,3
it is equivalent to
USING (BASE,BASE+4096),3
ONLY for 12-bit B+D instructions
19 matches
Mail list logo
