Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On 12/7/22 10:01:33, Steve Smith wrote: "The second operand is two bytes in length and is treated as a 16-bit signed binary integer." So, I think it's just a bug. I haven't had occasion to use -1 with CHSI, etc., but I have with MVHI, etc. and no such warning is emitted. It appears that

Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Tony Harminc
On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 at 14:28, Ed Jaffe wrote: > On 12/7/2022 9:12 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: > > > > Maybe replace CLHHSI with CHHSI, which is designed for signed values: > > Duh! I would have suggested that myself had I read PoOp more carefully... > > Thanks, Gord! > But if you're doing a mass

Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Ed Jaffe
On 12/7/2022 9:12 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: Maybe replace CLHHSI with CHHSI, which is designed for signed values: Duh! I would have suggested that myself had I read PoOp more carefully... Thanks, Gord! -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe Chief Technology Officer 831 Parkview

Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Seymour J Metz
: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 12:01 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance "The second operand is two bytes in length and is treated as a 16-bit signed binary integer." So, I think it's just a bug. I haven't had occasion to use -1 with

Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Gord Tomlin
On 2022-12-07 10:46 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: We decided to replace many SS instructions with their SIL counterparts. One common case is frustrating. D501 C01E C020  CLC   HWord,=H'-1'    Is it negative one? A784 000C   JE    NegOne  Branch if yes replaced with: E555

Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Steve Smith
Ooops. Missed that you were using the CL* version. No such thing as negative numbers in logical land. sas On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 12:00 PM Ed Jaffe wrote: > On 12/7/2022 8:20 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > When you code an immediate operand, it has semantics beyond the > generated code. An

Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Steve Smith
> > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on > behalf of Ed Jaffe [edja...@phoenixsoftware.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:46 AM > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE

Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Ed Jaffe
On 12/7/2022 8:20 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: When you code an immediate operand, it has semantics beyond the generated code. An operand of -1 is signed and not equivalent to X'', even though they have the same value. The instruction is compare logical half half storage immediate, thus the

Re: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Seymour J Metz
[ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf of Ed Jaffe [edja...@phoenixsoftware.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:46 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance We decided to replace many SS instructions with their SIL counterparts. One common case

CLHHSI TYPECHECK(MAGNITUDE) Annoyance

2022-12-07 Thread Ed Jaffe
We decided to replace many SS instructions with their SIL counterparts. One common case is frustrating. D501 C01E C020  CLC   HWord,=H'-1'    Is it negative one? A784 000C   JE    NegOne  Branch if yes replaced with: E555 C01E   CLHHSI HWord,-1   Is