On Jun 26, 2010, at 21:39, Tony Harminc wrote:
Now perhaps what IBM really meant to say is along the lines of
IXGWRITE, which adds:
The caller must be supervisor state with any system (0-7) PSW key to
either invoke this service in SRB mode or to use the MODE=SYNCEXIT
keyword.
Or perhaps
On Jun 27, 2010, at 15:35, Kirk Wolf wrote:
If you allocate a DD to a PDS member and then OPEN it (using BSAM), is there
a way to get the TTR of the first block of the member after open?
Why BSAM, rather than BPAM and BLDL?
Sure, I could read the first block, then do a NOTE, and then POINT
On Aug 11, 2010, at 08:37, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:07:34 -0500 McKown, John wrote:
:This is just curiousity on my part. I was thinking about standard parameter
passing in z/OS. That's where R1 points to a list of fullwords containing
address of parameters, with the
On Aug 18, 2010, at 03:54, robin wrote:
If that routine was originally an OS/360 as opposed to an OS/390
routine, the move to/from an aligned HW was needed since you would
get a program check when using LH/STH if the source/target was not HW
aligned.
well, on that machine, a couple of ICs
On Aug 18, 2010, at 17:30, John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-) wrote:
I think the original posting was pointing out that you lose only
a single byte of addressability by adding 4095, and that you save
one instruction. The added byte is rarely an issue; whether or not
the extra instruction is
On Aug 18, 2010, at 20:33, Steve Smith wrote:
Furthermore, it is incorrect to put a USING statement before it is valid
(although it is fairly common). It should be moved after your commented
line. The USING for R13 is also obviously premature.
What do you do when you're marching through
On Aug 19, 2010, at 07:25, David Bond wrote:
Ensuring the base registers are 4096 apart is important when using based
USINGs for items within the referenced area. A 4095 increment requires
separate USINGs for each register, resulting in separate USING ranges. A
4096 increment allows a single
On Aug 19, 2010, at 09:12, David Bond wrote:
Given:
USING DSA,R13,R12
or:
USING DSA,R13
USING DSA+4096,R12
with:
USING (IHADCB,IHADCB+DCBLNGQS),SYSPRINT
MVC DCBDDNAM,=CL8'SYSOUT'
...
DSA DSECT
...
SYSPRINT DCB ... (generated DCB starts
On Aug 20, 2010, at 07:51, McKown, John wrote:
Good point on the pipeline. I am constantly forgetting about pipeline delays.
Is there a tool to analyze and report these? I recall
that decades ago there was such for CDC 6600.
-- gil
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
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
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 dealt with under the hood (bonnet), whether they be
screen-input or macro
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,
On 08/23/10 18:02, John McKown wrote:
Thanks to the way that z/OS works, there is no need to initialize the
table. Do the STORAGE OBTAIN and use BNDRY=PAGE. When a never before
used page is first referenced, a free frame is assigned and initialized
Is this specified in TFM? Even if you've
On Aug 24, 2010, at 07:07, Andreas F. Geissbuehler wrote:
From: Fred van der Windt
Store the list starting at the end of the memory area.
That way you can use one MVCL to move the list down
Some CPU's [used to] raise 'overlap' CC on such MVCL's
That's not what I've read in the PoOp. But
On 08/24/10 14:36, Gil, Victor x28091 wrote:
Patrick,
In your step #3 - if the list is kept in descending order [i.e.
bottom-to-top] you can happily employ a single MVCL as it won't be
overlapping.
Of course, your binary search needs to know the order is descending.
???
You mean MVCL
On Aug 25, 2010, at 09:07, Bill Fairchild wrote:
The bit string scheme will require 512 MB of virtual storage, but far less
than that in real storage backing the virtual storage working set, as the OP
has himself indicated that the total number of input items, each of which
could cause a
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
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
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
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
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 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
On Sep 14, 2010, at 18:27, John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-) wrote:
Think of it this way: the USING specifies Max-16 and the implied
address specifies -(Max-16) so the difference between the two that's
needed for the displacement is the implied address minus the USING
value, or
On Oct 1, 2010, at 07:56, Tom Marchant wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:37:48 -0400, Steve Smith wrote:
I don't think all that dynamic allocation would be simpler than using
BPAM.
It would if you use BPXWDYN.
Depends on the language. SAS/C has some BPAM support. In Rexx
BPXWDYN is easy. In
On Oct 1, 2010, at 10:12, robin wrote:
From: Frank M. Ramaekers framaek...@ailife.com
Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 5:14 AM
Doesn't the following statement check to see that all 16-bytes are same?
00251A D50E 5001 5000 1 0 8688 CLC 1(15,R5),0(R5)
Useful if you know the
On 10/7/2010 1:06 PM, Rob Scott wrote:
I agree - I would *love* to know how to override this behaviour in IPCS - I
find that it gets in the way much more than it helps.
Sometimes. I remember once entering a thoughtlessly composed operator
command,
perhaps d u, whatever and watching
On Oct 8, 2010, at 04:43, robin wrote:
In fact, with some printers, printing would actually be
slowed down by having to print the alpha characters
of the message (compared to printing only numeric).
That's s Twentieth Century.
And I wonder even about the economic tradeoff between
printer
On Oct 8, 2010, at 00:56, robin wrote:
From: john gilmore john_w_gilm...@msn.com
Sent: Friday, 8 October 2010 1:51 PM
My first post was remiss in not noting another important use of
blanks-substring detection, which is due originally to
the late John Cocke.
The most important determinant
On Oct 8, 2010, at 13:39, john gilmore wrote:
... Bubble sorts are in fact optimal for key sets that are already very
nearly in sequence; and when a multiset, one containing duplicate keys, is
reordered by a bubble sort it preserves the original ordering of these
duplicates, which is
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:34, D E Engelbrecht wrote:
What if you use DFSORT and then use a little assembler program as a DFSORT
exit (exit E35) to check for duplicates and then drop them?
Perhaps he intends to condense a report by replacing duplicate
records with:
nnn Lines same as above
--
On Oct 17, 2010, at 12:08, esst...@juno.com wrote:
They may have been discussed before.
Has IBM opened up the ZIP and ZAP TCBS to software vendors/developers ?
It was my understanding that IBM did not want to disclose that.
Is there a documented interface ?
Related topic: I understand
On Oct 17, 2010, at 13:48, David Bond wrote:
OPTABLE(YOP) enables long-displacement which ignores USING ranges when
assembling long-displacement capable instructions. (I strongly disagree
with that design decision because it destroys the usefulness of USING ranges.)
Good point. A range
On 2010-10-28 14:01, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of John Walker
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 2:48 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASSEMBLER-LIST Digest - 26 Oct 2010
On Oct 29, 2010, at 07:45, Beate Kawelke wrote:
The first two are simply a change from one statement into another - no big
deal (except that there is no SHI, so I've got to use AHI ...,-nn).
With a special tweak for SH =H'-32768'? This can be much obscured
by the use of EQUated or SETA
On 2010-12-03 14:45, Fred van der Windt wrote:
Trouble comes when the SPMs are used by people who do not/cannot write macro
definitions.
Ah.
So if I code a macro invocation with parameters that do not meet the documented
specification of that macro, but the macro ignores the incorrect
On Dec 6, 2010, at 03:48, D E Engelbrecht wrote:
Authoritarian schemes--Programming languages constructed as dialects of
Newspeak, Was its nicht erlaubt ist verboten, and the like--are always
misconceived.
'misconceived' - Agreed.
For the purists:
Was ist nicht erlaubt is verboten (What
On Dec 9, 2010, at 05:33, Bill Fairchild wrote:
z/OS is the only operating system produced by IBM that I know of that
enforces this rule. The invalid range is not invalid under VM, VS1 (if it
still exists), DOS/VS (or whatever it is called now), TPF, etc.
Does VS1 support even 31-bit, much
On Dec 10, 2010, at 05:46, Peter Relson wrote:
I wish you wouldn't write within the bar. It suggests that
the bar has thickness, which it does not. Addresses up to and
including 7FFF are below the bar. Addresses from 8000
and up are above the bar. Special dispensation is not
On Dec 9, 2010, at 12:43, john gilmore wrote:
Vanilla use of IARV64 obviates all difficulties, and it is perhaps worth
repeating that we are talking here about virtual storage: none of these
reservations deprives anyone of any real storage; ...
They do, however, entail the overhead of
On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:14, John Ehrman wrote:
... but I have a suspicion, which has been voiced here before, that IBM's
internal use of PL/X instead of assembly language has led to significant
deterioration in the currency of the assembly-language documentation that
the rest of us, outside
On 2010-12-17 13:22, Bodoh John Robert wrote:
All,
I am new to this list so excuse me if this has been asked before.
When a macro receives an ordinary symbol as a parameter it may need to
reference the symbol (get the address of the storage location
represented by the symbol). If the symbol
On Dec 19, 2010, at 04:29, D E Engelbrecht wrote:
Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänspatent
Translation:
Danube steamship company captain's license
Exactly what Google says. I would have expected the word
travel in the translation. But I'm not a Germanophone.
Do German fonts
On Dec 20, 2010, at 07:05, Bodoh John Robert wrote:
Ed, Martin, John, Tony, et al,
What I am doing is creating macros that are used by any other application. I
was hoping to avoid having the user of these macros have to specify the
technique needed to address symbols. That sounds clutzy
On Dec 20, 2010, at 08:49, Bodoh John Robert wrote:
What about lookahead? Does that not set attributes based on the
characteristics of symbols not already defined? Why not an attribute
that indicates whether not a symbol is addressable by relative
addressing instructions?
Lookahead has its
On Dec 20, 2010, at 09:30, David Bond wrote:
Except for some of the most recent additions to the architecture, data
fields (including constants) need to be addressed via base register.
Setting it up via LARL does not change that fact.
The convention for macros usually is: If a symbol is
On Dec 20, 2010, at 09:59, Bodoh John Robert wrote:
It sounds like you're agreeing with me: There is a limitation in
macros.
Thanks. But don't cite me as an authority. My opinions carry little
positive weight in this list.
-- gil
On Dec 21, 2010, at 01:24, Martin Trübner wrote:
Oops. Of course, I should have said a +/- 4GiB relative
displacement. :-[
Considering the options for running/residency of the program- where
would that make a difference? ;-)
Could this happen with RMODE(SPLIT); code below and data above
the
On Dec 21, 2010, at 08:09, Mike Shaw wrote:
No doubt, someone @ IBM thinks a GUPI-format program object would slow down
compiler development...
IIRC, the concern expressed arose from an experience where ISVs or
customers had exploited documented features of load module format
that IBM itself
On 2010-12-21 17:17, John McKown wrote:
I don't really do development at this level. Why would the order of
CSECTs within a module matter? I even have trouble understanding PAGE
alignment for anything other than perhaps performance or page fixing.
The most I know is that some of the
On Dec 23, 2010, at 08:46, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 12/21/2010 10:24 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
... IBM's rationale for thinking it need not be carried forward into the
64-bit realm.
I remembered a SHARE speaker implying that binder/loader split support to
include possible future RMODE(64)
On Dec 23, 2010, at 20:17, Don Higgins wrote:
Today I published the latest open source version of z390 Portable
Mainframe Assembler and Emulator for Windows and Linux which now supports
the new IBM z196 mainframe instructions.
...
You can download z390 via www.z390.org or the z390 project
On Dec 23, 2010, at 20:17, Don Higgins wrote:
... There is a
new regression test program rt\test\TESTINS3.MLC which contains first
tests of the new instructions.
I can't find this; is it in one of the PTFs I couldn't access?
You can download z390 via www.z390.org or the z390 project on
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
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
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
On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:57, McKown, John wrote:
...
LR13,4(,R13)
LM R14,R12,12(R13)
CALL MYSUB,(PARAMS,...),LINKOP='15,15',LINKINST=BCR,VL
The above call replaces the normal BALR 14,15 with BCR 15,15 and so goes to
MYSUB, but removes the current program
On Jan 20, 2011, at 15:49, Michael McCawley wrote:
Whoever developed the CUA ISPF/PDF settings (command @ bottom, tab to
pull-down, etc.) certainly never used ISPF for better productivity.
What's wrong with command @ bottom? I suppose I'm not a highly
proficient typist; I like to have the
On Jan 31, 2011, at 13:44, John Walker wrote:
Say, I have been noticing over the last year or so that i FREQUENTLY end up
with my edit setting set to NULLS ON. This is an annoying and aberrant
setting for any non-PC or non-unix use, which is to say ALL mainframe
applications and work.
On Feb 1, 2011, at 07:49, John Walker wrote:
(Usually, I just set NULLS ON; do my insertion; and hope that
it doesn't end up being reset somehow by ISPF.)
This is CAUSED by having existing NULLS in your file.
That is another reason why nobody needs NULLS ON.
I would expect that existing
On Feb 1, 2011, at 08:42, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
Nulls are not stored in edited files, but are replaced by blanks.
That's a considerable oversimplification. I bet I can find a
couple counterexamples.
-- gil
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:57, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 2/3/2011 10:41 AM, Johanson, Adam wrote:
Then, I told myself that the whole point of the exercise was to make
the code more readable, so a branch to a return-to-caller label every now
and then didn't really defeat the purpose and
On Feb 4, 2011, at 08:40, Thomas Berg wrote:
I don't quite understand Your problems with SIGNAL. AFAICS, You use SIGNAL
when the situation is such that You can't handle it within Your REXX routine
logic/context. That's is, You must abort all processing and (normally) give
a comprehensive
On Feb 5, 2011, at 07:59, john gilmore wrote:
This time around, however, I want to put a more general statement on the
record. Any instruction that operates on a unit shorter in length than its
run-time machine's fetch width is all but certain to be slower than itrs
analogue that operates
On Feb 9, 2011, at 07:22, Walt Farrell wrote:
See the TSO/E REXX Reference and look closely at the example
showing how to use SIGNAL to implement a multi-way call.
It shows setting up a dynamic label, then CALLing a subroutine which issues
a SIGNAL that derives the label name to invoke, with
On Feb 13, 2011, at 09:12, Edward Jaffe wrote:
I would like to amend my statement to say that if the SRB runs strictly vendor
product code, then this is a common approach and there are no issues. However,
if the vendor code running in the SRB will invoke CUSTOMER code that would
have
On Feb 15, 2011, at 14:31, Jack Schudel wrote:
When I tried to drill down to the detail page for an instruction
I got a 404 Page Not Found message.
It appears that the filename generated by the html is in
upper case, but the actual file name on your site is
in lower case.
For example,
On 2/21/2011 11:17 AM, Mike Shaw wrote:
Shouldn't the assembler check the DCB attributes for an existing SYSADATA
output file, particularly a PDS or PDSE, and use those attributes, rather
than CHANGING the DCB attributes without a warning? If he's not happy 'cause
the LRECL is too short, give me
On 2/21/2011 3:00 PM, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:20:04 -0700 Paul Gilmartinpaulgboul...@aim.com
wrote:
:On 2/21/2011 11:17 AM, Mike Shaw wrote:
: Shouldn't the assembler check the DCB attributes for an existing SYSADATA
: output file, particularly a PDS or PDSE, and use
On Mar 10, 2011, at 08:06, Bill Fairchild wrote:
... The original implementation of SMF only recorded EXCP counts when the
file was closed, which will never happen if the job never ends.
Just curious -- would an orderly system shutdown flush such accounting
records, perhaps by sending a STOP
On Apr 4, 2011, at 09:09, Tony Harminc wrote:
On 4 April 2011 08:01, Joe Owens joe_ow...@standardlife.com wrote:
One question occurs - must I now use extended save areas, as I am doing
something to the top halves of the GPRs, or will the system take care of
that for me? (There are no amode
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:04, Tony Harminc wrote:
On 4 April 2011 08:01, Joe Owens joe_ow...@standardlife.com wrote:
One question occurs - must I now use extended save areas, as I am doing
something to the top halves of the GPRs, or will the system take care of
that for me? (There are no amode
On Apr 7, 2011, at 14:02, Alex Kodat wrote:
A programmer, on the other hand, even with only a glimmer of knowledge of
what the program is doing can usually guess which if block is most likely to
be executed so optimize the code for that if block, for example by holding
registers and pointers
On Apr 17, 2011, at 05:58, John McKown wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what you mean by n
locked operations to per performed simultaneously. Do you mean that the
other three operations: TS, CS, and CDS cause all other CPs in a CEC to
stop processing instructions (at an
On May 10, 2011, at 09:18, John McKown wrote:
decided to call it compare and suppress following instruction. This
instruction (actual multiple forms) would do a compare of some sort, not
set the condition code in the PSW, have the condition code encoded in
the compare, and if the condition
On May 11, 2011, at 10:09, Tom Marchant wrote:
There were several follow-on processors, including the 6510 used in
the Commodore-64, but none that I know of that included RAM on the
chip. Actually, the 6502 was a follow-on to the 6501, which was
designed to be pin-compatible with the 6800
On 5/16/2011 2:13 PM, Michael Lude wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:03:29 +0100, Dougie Lawsondl1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 May 2011 20:01, Michael Ludéml...@illustro.com wrote:
I can't seem to find this, I'm sure that someone on this list knows the
answer. How can I find the difference
On 5/16/2011 1:01 PM, Michael Ludé wrote:
I can't seem to find this, I'm sure that someone on this list knows the
answer. How can I find the difference between what STCK returns and the UTC
or GMT time? And, is the timezone identifier (e.g. PST, EDT, etc.) available?
Thanks,
Mike Ludé
z/OS
On May 16, 2011, at 14:12, Tony Harminc wrote:
they want, and indeed a surprising number of shops seem to still set
it to local time, though the practice has been deprecated for decades.
Some, in the eastern hemisphere, can't afford the several hours'
downtime it would take to reset without
On May 17, 2011, at 01:45, Dougie Lawson wrote:
On 17 May 2011 02:59, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
On May 16, 2011, at 14:12, Tony Harminc wrote:
they want, and indeed a surprising number of shops seem to still set
it to local time, though the practice has been deprecated
On May 16, 2011, at 14:03, Dougie Lawson wrote:
CVTLDTO gives you the offset, CVTLSO is the number of leap seconds.
LGR1,StckTimeStamp
ALG R1,CVTLDTO
SLG R1,CVTLSO
STG R1,LocalTime
But be careful. If an interrupt occurs between the STCK and the
offsetting arithmetic, and
On 5/27/2011 3:14 PM, Steve Comstock wrote:
On 5/27/2011 11:28 AM, David Cole wrote:
I wonder what it will take to get ASM-LIST to upgrade themselves out
of the stone age and into supporting more modern formatting??
H. More modern? But I thought html email is a good
place for viruses
On May 30, 2011, at 02:52, Thomas Berg wrote:
AFAICS, there is no is no inherent advantage with HTML (etc) compared to
plain text, if You are out for the content. And some distinct disadvantages
with (e g) HTML.
But in David Cole's case there is a bit different: he is trying to run a
On May 30, 2011, at 09:54, Chris Mason wrote:
..., with the exception ..., no asynchronous
exit routine can interrupt another asynchronous exit routine;
...
Is this accomplished as simply as by inserting the RB in a
suitable position in the RB queue? Is this facility GUPI?
-- gil
On Jun 3, 2011, at 16:19, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 6/3/2011 2:08 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
Here is a simple solution. Create a $DC macro to use in lieu of the
DC. That will allow you to format your DC as you want (ie: Macro
continuation format). Inside the macro you can generate each parm
On Jun 4, 2011, at 16:13, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 6/4/2011 12:58 PM, John Ehrman wrote:
Paul Gilmartin was irritated:
o It's particularly irritating that PRINT OFF was printed 40
times in the listing. G. When I say PRINT OFF, I mean
don't print anything until I POP PRINT.
Try PRINT
On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:12, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 6/5/2011 7:47 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I had that originally. The SETC and the AIF were printed every time
through the loop; I didn't want that. So they are doing something.
We had discussed writing a macro to consume 'friendly' DCs
On Jun 3, 2011, at 16:19, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 6/3/2011 2:08 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
Here is a simple solution. Create a $DC macro to use in lieu of the
DC. That will allow you to format your DC as you want (ie: Macro
continuation format). Inside the macro you can generate each parm
On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:18, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
(my infamous example being the source for IEFSD095, the job
separator, which introduced me to BXH R5,R5, but also served as
a warning, as the author failed to take advantage of character
oriented instructions to manipulate character data).
On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:27, Martin Trübner wrote:
Which one is correct?
And Johns answer: The PoP is correct.
Of course- the question itself is heresy
What would happen if, for example, the hardware designers
invented some new stack manipulations and named them PUSH
and POP?
-- gil
On 6/21/2011 5:12 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
On 21 June 2011 18:47, Mark Boonieboo...@us.ibm.com wrote:
When did this doc change happen?
It appears it was part of SA22-7832-05, published in April 2007.
Ah yes, thank you - I see the change from improbable to will never
for opcode 00. But the
On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:57, Ray Mullins wrote:
I've also seen issues in poorly-coded macros (not mine) where use of
SYSECT in CEESTART rather than the hard-coded CSECT would avoid conflicts.
I believe if one wants to restore the entry location counter it's
better/easier to use:
SYSLOC
On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:45, Scott Kromarek wrote:
I am looking for a way to test a BSAM file opened in an assembler program
to determine the RECFM of the dataset. I'm pretty sure that this can be
done, but after being away from assembler coding for more than five years,
i'm more than a little
On Jul 31, 2011, at 08:20, Robin Vowels wrote:
From: Don Higgins d...@higgins.net
Sent: Sunday, 31 July 2011 8:26 PM
Do we really need any more opcodes? In college I have a faint
recollection of learning that all you need to emulate any computer is less
than 10 basic instruction types
On Jul 31, 2011, at 12:26, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:28:23 -0600 Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
wrote:
:The PDP-8 had no L (or equivalent) instruction. It was
:necessary to synthesize it from other instructions.
There was no native storage to register instruction
On Aug 11, 2011, at 05:26, Martin Trübner wrote:
Without LE I (and anyone else) can write subroutines that work
identical if called from JCL or from another program (in VSE as
well as in MVS). All you have to do is make sure that a single
parm is prefixed with an LL field.
This is no longer
On Aug 16, 2011, at 05:44, Steve Comstock wrote:
-
JCL cataloged and in-stream procedures may now
have data set as DD * or DD DATA included
INCLUDE members may also contain DD * or DD DATA data
Yaaay! It's about time. Can symbol substitution be far
behind? (I fear so).
(the
On Aug 24, 2011, at 08:40, john gilmore wrote:
... She did not understand
The switch statement is a multi-way decision that tests whether an
expression matches one of a number of constant integer values , and branches
accordingly.
This is understandable since the switch statement, which
On Aug 30, 2011, at 23:29, Fred van der Windt wrote:
The comfort or discomfort of the ASSEMBLER programmers is not significant in
this context, in my believe. Due to pipelining and cache issues,
clever compilers will sooner or later outperform hand-written ASSEMBLER
programs.
The z196 is
1 - 100 of 1084 matches
Mail list logo
