On 11/17/2021 1:36 AM, Jonathan Scott wrote:
We have just shipped the PTFs for APAR PH42050 which allows a
dependent USING instruction to be resolved using a 20-bit signed
displacement provided that the specified OPTABLE is one which
supports instructions with that capability.
|
Ref: Your note of Wed, 17 Nov 2021 18:09:47 +
gil writes:
>Also, decades ago, I found that (something like):
>PSWMAP DSECT
> ...
> USING PSWMAP-SVCOPSW,R0
>
>quietly behaved as if I had coded:
> USING PSWMAP,R0
>
>Experts conceded that the behavior is indefensible
gil writes:
>Also, decades ago, I found that (something like):
>PSWMAP DSECT
> ...
> USING PSWMAP-SVCOPSW,R0
>
>quietly behaved as if I had coded:
> USING PSWMAP,R0
>
>Experts conceded that the behavior is indefensible except
>on grounds of compatibility with existing
Ref: Your note of Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:17:36 -0700
gil writes:
> Does that affect generated code, or even ASMADATA? Might
> any users depend on the misbehavior?
The Active Usings headings and the Using Map are just additional
information in the listing (and ADATA) so any errors in the code
to
On Nov 17, 2021, at 02:36:12, Jonathan Scott wrote:
> ...
> When we resumed this item recently, we found that the logic to
> handle the dependent USING base address and range in the Using
> Map and Active Usings headings incorrectly assumed that any
> dependent USING would be basing the start
That's great! Explaining things like "ST USING
STATUS_TABLE+4000,STATUS_DESC+4000 " makes people suspect me of witchcraft.
sas
We have just shipped the PTFs for APAR PH42050 which allows a
dependent USING instruction to be resolved using a 20-bit signed
displacement provided that the specified OPTABLE is one which
supports instructions with that capability.
It was apparently intended that this support should have been
