Hmmm, a huge chunk of code, hundreds of lines say, replicated a time or two in the same source, with subtle minor changes and compile-time conditioned with easily unnoticed uncommented lonely AIF's. Maybe that's worse, but I'm easily chaffed by head fakes. :-)
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 12:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Base-less programming On 12/4/2013 1:16 PM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > I try to balance the use of B *+2+4 style branches against the > cluttering up by using a bunch of labels. It's never for more than 2 > instructions. > Nothing worse than looking at long series of tests followed by bit > setting instructions where every other instruction has a label. Really? Nothing? A startling lack of imagination there. :-) -Steve Comstock > > Tony Thigpen > > -----Original Message ----- > From: Chris Craddock > Sent: 12/04/2013 02:58 PM >>> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:37:31 -0600 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Base-less programming >>> To: [email protected] >>> >> <snip>> > >>>> Am I reading the book right? >>>> >>> >>> No. Although the assembled instructions have the displacement in >>> half words, your source code should still use the original "offset". >>> HLASM itself will halve the value. And it will complain bitterly if >>> the offset is not even. So you just replace the B??? with J??? and >>> leave the operand itself alone. >> >> Well.. yes, but being pedantic; how about just using a label?!? I >> cringe whenever I see carefully crafted branch statements with instruction >> lengths. >> That's trivially broken by any down-stream change, whereas a label as >> a jump or branch target will never be wrong - no matter how much the >> code changes in between. Make your own and the next poor fool's job easier. >> Just saying.... >> CC >> >
