I believe that literals could be sorted by alignment requirement
instead of length, this way minimizing the needed padding bytes.
That is, multiples of 8 first, then multiples of 4, then multiples of
2, then odd lenghts, that need to be aligned on even addresses
because of relative addressing,
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:48:08 +0200 Bernd Oppolzer bernd.oppol...@t-online.de
wrote:
:I believe that literals could be sorted by alignment requirement
:instead of length, this way minimizing the needed padding bytes.
:That is, multiples of 8 first, then multiples of 4, then multiples of
:2, then
Fred van der Windt wrote:
I am all for constants like...
SEC_HOUR DCF'3600'
I prefer to let the assembler do the work, especially when processing
TOD clock values:
SecsIn1Hr SETA 60*60 1hr = 60 min * 60 secs
LMR14,R15,=FL8S12'SecsIn1Hr.E6' Get 60 mins
Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
I believe that literals could be sorted by alignment requirement
instead of length, this way minimizing the needed padding bytes.
Using this scheme, one byte literals requiring doubleword alignment will
require seven padding bytes each. It would be better if literals
Let's dispose of two cases:
(1) =0C'a' is an illegal literal; zero lengths are invalid.
(2) HLASM shouldn't pad the *contents* of literals, because the
program might refer to their length attribute (say, for a move)
and moving a different number of bytes than were in the original
literal could
On Aug 22, 2010, at 18:11, John R. Ehrman wrote:
(1) =0C'a' is an illegal literal; zero lengths are invalid.
I thought the 0 was a duplication factor, not a length modifier.
But, yes, I now see the RM says:
1. A duplication factor of zero is permitted, except
for literals, ...
And,
This whole discussion seems to miss the reason for using a literal(i.e. to
group together constants in order of their storage alignment requirements).
This code will do what he wants with any alignment error...
LARL 3,LTORG
USING 3,LTORG
LA 3,=x'23'
DROP 3
...
data.
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu]
On Behalf Of Bohn, Dale
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:01 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: LARL vs. Literal Alignment
This whole discussion seems to miss
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:56:41 -0600 Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
wrote:
:On Aug 21, 2010, at 16:44, john gilmore wrote:
: The notion that customers cannot reasonably be deprived of literals
suggests that what is in question is some fill-in-the-blanks situation. Such
problems can be
John Gilmore of the IBM Mainframe Assembler List
ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU wrote on 08/22/2010 10:14:12 AM:
For the benefit of those who need such guidance I will in future
mark any jocular technical suggestions I make here with the delimiters
|technical joke begins
| . . .
|technical
John P. Baker wrote:
When using the LARL instruction to reference a literal (i.e., =X'..'), I
receive an ASMA058E error message due to the literal not being property
aligned (on a halfword boundary).
It would seem to me that when a relative instruction references a literal,
the assembler should
On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 11:18 -0500, John P Kalinich wrote:
John Gilmore of the IBM Mainframe Assembler List
ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU wrote on 08/22/2010 10:14:12 AM:
For the benefit of those who need such guidance I will in future
mark any jocular technical suggestions I make here
Keith E. Moe wrote:
While the alignment of literals if used in LARL would be nice, I'd like to see
a whole bunch of new relative instructions that would allow the
moving, loading, and comparing of a relatively addressed constant (literal or DC) to a
register or based storage. This would
registers
for static data.
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu]
On Behalf Of Bohn, Dale
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:01 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: LARL vs. Literal Alignment
This whole
When using the LARL instruction to reference a literal (i.e., =X'..'), I
receive an ASMA058E error message due to the literal not being property
aligned (on a halfword boundary).
It would seem to me that when a relative instruction references a literal,
the assembler should force an otherwise
On Aug 21, 2010, at 12:04, John P. Baker wrote:
When using the LARL instruction to reference a literal (i.e., =X'..'), I
receive an ASMA058E error message due to the literal not being property
aligned (on a halfword boundary).
It would seem to me that when a relative instruction references a
On Aug 21, 2010, at 12:04, John P. Baker wrote:
When using the LARL instruction to reference a literal (i.e., =X'..'), I
receive an ASMA058E error message due to the literal not being property
aligned (on a halfword boundary).
...
Is there any known method by which to force an otherwise
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: LARL vs. Literal Alignment
I've read a little more on this:
High Level Assembler for z/OS z/VM z/VSE Language Reference
Release 6
Document Number SC26-4940-05
__
5.31.1 Literal pool
...
* The fourth segment
John P. Baker wrote:
When using the LARL instruction to reference a literal (i.e., =X'..'), I
receive an ASMA058E error message due to the literal not being property
aligned (on a halfword boundary).
It would seem to me that when a relative instruction references a literal,
the assembler
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu]
On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:59 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: LARL vs. Literal Alignment
1. LARL stores the address of the target as a signed
On 21 August 2010 17:27, John P. Baker jbaker...@comporium.net wrote:
There is no problem when the literal is specified as H'nn', F'nn', or of any
other form which requires halfword or better alignment.
Likewise, there is no problem with a binary, character, or hexadecimal
literal whose
. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu]
On Behalf Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 7:16 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: LARL vs. Literal Alignment
This stretches and digresses from the point
John P. Baker wrote:
When using the LARL instruction to reference a literal (i.e., =X'..'), I
receive an ASMA058E error message due to the literal not being property
aligned (on a halfword boundary).
It would seem to me that when a relative instruction references a literal,
the assembler
On Aug 21, 2010, at 14:59, Steve Comstock wrote:
John P. Baker wrote:
When using the LARL instruction to reference a literal (i.e., =X'..'), I
receive an ASMA058E error message due to the literal not being property
aligned (on a halfword boundary).
1. LARL stores the address of the target
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Aug 21, 2010, at 14:59, Steve Comstock wrote:
John P. Baker wrote:
When using the LARL instruction to reference a literal (i.e., =X'..'), I
receive an ASMA058E error message due to the literal not being property
aligned (on a halfword boundary).
1. LARL stores the
25 matches
Mail list logo
