I don't have access to HLASM now, but I'd expect an informational message on LA
R0,5 saying that the symbol R0 may have incompatible type. That is triggered
by the previous presence of an EQU with type GR for another symbol. I think
that the way TYPECHECK works is well documented.
Is that what happens?
TYPECHECK(REGISTER) was supposed to be the start of a more rigorous consistency
checking scheme, but there were too many ambiguous cases, and then high word
instructions came along, so it all came to a halt.
Jonathan Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> On Behalf
Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: 03 September 2025 18:29
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Using (0) to suppress alignment checks in HLASM
What would you expect when you assembled this, assuming I counted commas
correctly?
R0 EQU 0
GR0 EQU 0,,,,GR
LA 0,5
LA R0,5
LA GR0,5
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf
of Paul Gilmartin <00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:27 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Using (0) to suppress alignment checks in HLASM
External Message: Use Caution
On 9/2/25 20:27, Steve Smith wrote:
> ...
>It's just solipsistic to say the machine "considers"> register 0 to be 0. The
>language in the PoOp is more like you cannot use
> register 0 for addressing in most cases.
> ...
"the machine" operates only on the value of the four
bits in the register field. The assembler, however,
can operate differently depending on whether the field
is left empty or an explicit 0 appears.
The assembler could even differentiate between a literal
0 and a symbol EQUated to 0. I hope it doesn't.
"solipsistic"? Perhaps you mean "anthropomorphism"?
--
gil
