> "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."

I thought that was what Mike was referring to. It, the swing and The Wizard of 
Id should be on every programmer's door.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [[email protected]] on behalf 
of Paul Gilmartin [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 10:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Returning bool and similar values from subroutines (was z/OS 
HLASM: EQU for statement labels)

On 2020-06-02, at 19:37:25, Gary Weinhold wrote:
>
> I recall that VM/370 CP routines set CC before returning to the caller;
> I don't have access to the source anymore (for the last 30 years or so)
> to verify this and what technique was used.  I just remember thinking it
> was different and clever (coming from a VS1/MVS background).
>
I'd guess stuffing it in the Old PSW before LPSW returns to caller.


> On 2020-06-02, at 18:45:20, Mike Hochee wrote:
>
> Hmmm...
>
> "I had a tough time in code review.  Reviewers called me naive for using a 
> negative value in a base register.  No, the were ignorant; the code worked 
> and was correct."
>
> Perhaps technically 'correct', in that it worked, but why run the risk of 
> having a customer stumble over the eventual bad fruit borne of the seemingly 
> enlightened developer decades earlier, but since maintained by lesser souls. 
> 'Danger Will Robinson! Danger!!!'
>
No.  This is not a case where "It happens to work despite lack of
documentation, so I'll rely on it."  I've inveighed against such
practice elsewhere.  Rather, I relied only on the instructions'
working as specified in the PoOps.

Our requirements were:
o Status returned in CC.
o Correct operation on 370 where IPM/SPM were unavailable.
o Correct operatioh in AMODE 31.

It's always possible that an ignorant maintainer break things.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."

LH; LA would probably break in AMODE 64.  This was not a concerm
those decades ago.  SH would be no better.

-- gil

Reply via email to