As useful as it is for other things, it doesn't help in this case. <kvetch>Why are people still giving assembler classes that don't cover LOCTR, dependent USING and labelled USING?</kvetch>
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 11:45 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Complex immediate operands External Message: Use Caution On 3/30/26 07:01, Seymour J Metz wrote: > That sounds different from what I asked about. With new syntax there's no > conflict with existing code. Something like the below would have no ambiguity: > > IILH R1,[DC AL1(C' ',0)] > ... Are you proposing adding non-invariant EBCDIC characters to HLASM's vocabulary? That would surely increase traffic on these fora. I suppose HLASM could accept alternatives in several supported CCSIDs. Would LOCTR help with this? The PDP-6 assembler, MACRO, made a literal: < any sequence of instructions and/or data > replacing some uses of LOCTR. There are unexpected restrictions on literals. IIRC: LA R1,=F'42' works, but DC S(=F'42') fails, etc. I suspect this is due to a limit of CALL/RETURN nesting. -- gil
