LARL doesn't require a base register. If you don't need tp copy an AR, it and IILF seem like the obvious instructions.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Tony Harminc <t...@harminc.net> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:52 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relative Instructions not generated by some IBM macros, e.g. STORAGE and ATTACHX On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 at 14:27, Binyamin Dissen < 00000662573e2c3a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:06:06 -0400 Tony Harminc <t...@harminc.net> wrote: > [...] Don't see why a relative instruction should care about ARs. > The "relative" part of the instruction has to do with the target address, not the result. But I agree there's little point to it, since it would always be loading the AR with 0. LAEY allows addressibility before the base register and beyond 4K. > Fair enough. But we're not getting to "baseless" code. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
