On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:53:13 -0400, Justin R. Bendich wrote:
LAR1,256 - Line 1
USING 256,R1 - Line 2
LAR3,512(R2) - Line 3
The thread has been that, because of line 2, the assembler will
generate line 3 as follows:
4132 1100LA
On 12 September 2010 17:53, Justin R. Bendich jbend...@austin.rr.com wrote:
LAR1,256 - Line 1
USING 256,R1 - Line 2
LAR3,512(R2) - Line 3
The thread has been that, because of line 2, the assembler will
generate line 3 as follows:
4132
LAR1,256 - Line 1
USING 256,R1 - Line 2
LAR3,512(R2) - Line 3
The thread has been that, because of line 2, the assembler will
generate line 3 as follows:
4132 1100LAR3,512(R2)
If what i really want is for R3 to contain R2 +
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:53:13 -0400 Justin R. Bendich
jbend...@austin.rr.com wrote:
:LAR1,256 - Line 1
: USING 256,R1 - Line 2
: LAR3,512(R2) - Line 3
:The thread has been that, because of line 2, the assembler will
:generate line 3 as follows:
:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:11:43 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
bdis...@dissensoftware.com wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:53:13 -0400 Justin R. Bendich
jbend...@austin.rr.com wrote:
: LAR1,256 - Line 1
: USING 256,R1 - Line 2
: LAR3,512(R2) - Line 3
On Sep 12, 2010, at 21:44, Justin R. Bendich wrote:
: LAR3,512(R2,) - Variant 2
:or
: LAR3,512(,R2) - Variant 3
:?
The latter, as the assembler will not insert an index register.
So, you're saying that, in Variant 2, it could fill in the missing
base
From: McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 2010 10:46 PM
OK, a bit of a brain freeze on my part. Are you saying that
the results, in general, of an ADD vs. an ADD Logical
(such as AR vs. ALR) will result in a different result in
the value (bit pattern) stored in
From: Fred van der Windt fred.van.der.wi...@mail.ing.nl
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 3:02 PM
LHR1,=H'-4096'
USING -4096,R1
LAR2,*
LAR3,-4(,R2)
What does R3 now address?
This caused a great deal of debate on this list several years
ago. Very
From: Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
Sent: Saturday, 11 September 2010 12:15 AM
True for any discussion of whether adding a negative number
(or the two's complement of a positive number) is equivalent
(algebraically or conceptually) to subtracting its magnitude.
But the technique of
From: Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, 10 September 2010 11:12 PM
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:53:53 +1000, robin wrote:
From: Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 4:32 PM
I would firmly oppose such a gentle correction. Take a broad view.
Which has the more obvious
From: Steve Smith sasd...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, 10 September 2010 7:53 AM
On 9/8/2010 22:05, robin wrote:
From: Tony Harminc t...@harminc.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 7:14 AM
On 8 September 2010 15:09, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
The result is the same, of
From: Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 4:32 PM
I would firmly oppose such a gentle correction. Take a broad view.
Which has the more obvious meaning:
LAR3,-4(R2) Set R3 to 4 less than R2
It doesn't.
It sums 4092 and the content of R2.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:53:53 +1000, robin wrote:
From: Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 4:32 PM
I would firmly oppose such a gentle correction. Take a broad view.
Which has the more obvious meaning:
LAR3,-4(R2) Set R3 to 4 less than R2
It doesn't.
It sums
On Sep 10, 2010, at 00:53, robin wrote:
From: Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 4:32 PM
I would firmly oppose such a gentle correction. Take a broad view.
Which has the more obvious meaning:
LAR3,-4(R2) Set R3 to 4 less than R2
It
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400, Thomas David Rivers riv...@dignus.com
wrote:
I'm trying to determine why this would assemble the
instruction at line #3.
(We have to make some kind of assumption that
allows the negative absolute value as the first
operand of the USING, which both HLASM
On 09/10/10 08:29, Walt Farrell wrote:
How about this interpretation? The offset is 4092 from the value in R1,
since R1 addresses from -4096 to -1, and -4 - (-4096) is 4092. 4092 = FFC.
Another HLASM test case:
Active Usings: None
Loc Object CodeAddr1 Addr2 Stmt Source Statement
On 9/9/2010 12:14 AM, Fred van der Windt wrote:
Once my erroneous comma is removed, you can walk a lot further.
Read John Ehrman's article, as cited earlier by Michael Stack:
http://www.kcats.org/csci/464/ho/usingtechnique.shtml
Not really. The offset will still and always allow you to
Well
As demonstrated by this very discussion the first form will baffle just about
any programmer. And the 'missing' comma is (at least with us) a bad habit as
well.
LAR3,-4(R2) Set R3 to 4 less than R2
or:
LAR3,4092(R1,R2) Set R3 to 4 less than R2
From: Tony Harminc t...@harminc.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 2:04 AM
On 8 September 2010 07:39, robin robi...@dodo.com.au wrote:
From: Tony Harminc t...@harminc.com
Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 9:20 AM
It's also how classic (base displacement) addressing arithmetic,
which we
From: Tony Harminc t...@harminc.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 7:14 AM
On 8 September 2010 15:09, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:35:42 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 05:39, robin wrote:
Classic base-displacement atithmetic is
Boys! You stop fighting or I stop the car and put the assembler away
until we get home.
| Rob
On 9/8/2010 22:05, robin wrote:
From: Tony Harminc t...@harminc.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 7:14 AM
On 8 September 2010 15:09, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:35:42 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 05:39, robin wrote:
Classic
From: Tony Harminc t...@harminc.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 7:14 AM
The relevant part of the zArch POO puts it this way:
In forming the intermediate sum, the base address and index are
treated as 64-bit binary integers. A 12-bit displacement is treated as
a 12-bit unsigned binary
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:35:42 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 05:39, robin wrote:
Classic base-displacement atithmetic is always addition,
never subtraction.
Ahem.
LHR1,=H'-4096'
USING -4096,R1
LAR2,*
LAR3,-4(,R2)
What does R3
@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Instruction Set Architecture
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:35:42 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 05:39, robin wrote:
Classic base-displacement atithmetic is always addition,
never subtraction.
Ahem.
LH
On 8 September 2010 15:09, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:35:42 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 05:39, robin wrote:
Classic base-displacement atithmetic is always addition,
never subtraction.
Ahem.
LHR1,=H'-4096'
On Sep 8, 2010, at 15:14, Tony Harminc wrote:
On 8 September 2010 15:09, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:35:42 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 05:39, robin wrote:
Classic base-displacement atithmetic is always addition,
never subtraction.
I'm surprised that this would assemble.
R:F 0 20 USING TEST5,R15
21 *
4810 F0100001022 LHR1,=H'-4096'
R:1 FFF000 23 USING -4096,R1
0004 4120 F004
On 9/8/2010 11:15 PM, Fred van der Windt wrote:
I'm surprised that this would assemble.
R:F 0 20 USING TEST5,R15
21 *
4810 F0100001022 LHR1,=H'-4096'
R:1 FFF000
From: John McKown joa...@swbell.net
Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 2010 6:01 AM
Funny, to me, is that RISC was supposed to be the wave of the future
(way back when) due to simpler and faster hardware
That was vogue when the capabilities of microprocessors
were somewhat limited.
The difficulty
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Robert
A. Rosenberg
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 12:26 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Instruction Set Architecture
At 15:01 -0500 on 09/06/2010
On 9/6/2010 6:11 PM, John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-) wrote:
Dan Greiner's SHARE presentation on the new z196 instructions
might help.
John Ehrman
I agree. It is an excellent presentation.
(-- Referenced Note Follows )
Date: 6 September 2010,
At 15:01 -0500 on 09/06/2010, John McKown wrote about Instruction Set
Architecture:
But some are a bit confusing to me. A case in point is the ALSI
instruction. It adds a signed immediate byte value (-128..+127) to 32 or
64 bit __unsigned__ integer. OK, this a 6 byte (3 halfword) instruction
33 matches
Mail list logo
