From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
@Greg is right -- Jump is not a big learning curve with lots of gotchas (unlike
say 64-bit or AR
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:17:32 -0500 Peter Relson wrote:
:>
:>So where you have a problem with what is generated, turn off IEABRCX.
:>
:>Just curious: do you have an example where IEABRCX resulted in the wrong
:>thing?
I would guess an assembly error when the target address is not in the
So where you have a problem with what is generated, turn off IEABRCX.
Just curious: do you have an example where IEABRCX resulted in the wrong
thing?
We tend to use IEABRC/IEABRCX to cover macro invocations, but also do
change our own branches to relative branches (as pointed out, this is
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:22:31 -0500, Gord Tomlin wrote:
>On 2018-11-15 16:43, Tom Marchant wrote:
>> I believe that you can have a relative branch to a symbol in another
>> CSECT that is resolved at binder time.
>
>Yes, if you include GOFF in your HLASM parameters. You will find that
>when you
On 2018-11-15 16:43, Tom Marchant wrote:
I believe that you can have a relative branch to a symbol in another
CSECT that is resolved at binder time.
Yes, if you include GOFF in your HLASM parameters. You will find that
when you specify GOFF, you will also need LIST(133) .
--
Regards, Gord
Just habit. Just what I do.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
A nitpick, but why would you change
AFAIK. Did you try?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:43:12 -0600, Tom
A nitpick, but why would you change everything to Jxx except BAL/BAS? JAS
would be more consistent.
IEABRC is pretty clever, but I've found it pretty quick to just rename all
the B* to J* and clean up the exceptions.
However, in my recent environment, virtually no branches of any kind were
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:43:12 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>>If the programmer is so rash as to define an ENTRY point with an odd
>>address, Bad Things can happen.
>
>I don't think that HLASM will allow you to do that.
>
How about:
FRED CSECT
DCC'A'
JOE DCC'Data only; not
ERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:21:01 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:38:05 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:33:55 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>>
>>>LARL is also very cool. It is like LA without a
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:21:01 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:38:05 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:33:55 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>>
>>>LARL is also very cool. It is like LA without a base register.
>>
>>Agreed. One thing to be aware of with LARL. It
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:38:05 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:33:55 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>>LARL is also very cool. It is like LA without a base register.
>
>Agreed. One thing to be aware of with LARL. It uses a signed
>halfword that is added to the current PSW address.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:33:55 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>LARL is also very cool. It is like LA without a base register.
Agreed. One thing to be aware of with LARL. It uses a signed
halfword that is added to the current PSW address. As a result
it cannot be used to get the address of an odd
Behalf Of Greg Price
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 7:18 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ASMA034E
>
>> On 2018-11-16 1:47 AM, Ward Able, Grant wrote:
>> Can someone point me to a reasonably simple example?
>
> If you can do branch instructions t
Thanks a lot Greg. I am sure to have fun with that!
Regards – Grant
DTCC Internal (Green)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Greg Price
Sent: 15 November 2018 15:18
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
On Nov 15, 2018, at 10:33 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> I am personally not fond of IEABRCX. The whole point of assembler is tight
> control of the generated machine code; not compiler magic. It is not hard at
> all to do CHG B J PREFIX and work through them one at a time either accepting
>
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 8:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:17:47 +1100, Greg Price wrote:
>On 2018-11-16 1:47 AM, Ward Able, Grant wrote:
>
for
different folks.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Greg Price
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 7:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
On 2018-11-16 1:47 AM, Ward Able, Grant wrote:
>
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:17:47 +1100, Greg Price wrote:
>On 2018-11-16 1:47 AM, Ward Able, Grant wrote:
>> Can someone point me to a reasonably simple example?
>
>If you can do branch instructions then you can do branch-relative
>instructions. Apart from RR instructions (BR, BASR, BALR, BASSM, BSM,
On 2018-11-16 1:47 AM, Ward Able, Grant wrote:
Can someone point me to a reasonably simple example?
If you can do branch instructions then you can do branch-relative
instructions. Apart from RR instructions (BR, BASR, BALR, BASSM, BSM,
BAKR and any others I've missed) replace the B that
I have been following the ASMA034E discussion and am interested in learning how
to do the new-fangled relative branching stuff.
Can someone point me to a reasonably simple example? I learned my Assembler in
the 80's and have been using that way of coding ever since. I think it is time
ssion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Peter Relson
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 4:45 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
A more modern (over 20 years old by now?) would suggest not having a USING
for your "code" at all, but rather using rela
On Nov 15, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
>
> A more modern (over 20 years old by now?) would suggest not having a USING
> for your "code" at all, but rather using relative branch with one register
> set up to point to your static data and a USING for that. It is relatively
>
A more modern (over 20 years old by now?) would suggest not having a USING
for your "code" at all, but rather using relative branch with one register
set up to point to your static data and a USING for that. It is relatively
infrequent that your static data would exceed 4K, and even if it did
Thank You - those worked.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Cieri, Anthony
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASMA034E
There is a sample z/OS FTP client user
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Steely.Mark
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: ASMA034E
The assembler program I am working on is receiving several of these messages:
ASMA034E Operand =X' bey
I believe it would be more educational for you to show what you tried.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 21:50:16 + "Steely.Mark"
wrote:
:>The assembler program I am working on is receiving several of these messages:
:>
:>ASMA034E Operand =X' beyond active USING range by 148 b
4:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: ASMA034E
EXTERNAL EMAIL
The assembler program I am working on is receiving several of these messages:
ASMA034E Operand =X' beyond active USING range by 148 bytes
I have tried all the examples to add a second register to the USING statement
The assembler program I am working on is receiving several of these messages:
ASMA034E Operand =X' beyond active USING range by 148 bytes
I have tried all the examples to add a second register to the USING statement.
When the program executes it gets a S0C1.
Currently I have a macro call
29 matches
Mail list logo
