Thank you for all your thoughts. Bottom line, like taxes, it's just the way things are unless IBM wants to change them. One idea offered was OPSYN, which I'll experiment with.
Also, my suggestion of replacing LAE with LAEY doesn't get out of base-displacement business, but LARL does. However, LARL does not have the access-register support that LAEY has. Also, LARL (and LAEY) are six bytes each which would, given the way the current macros are coded, upset keeping the parameter list on a fullword boundary (which may not be necessary anymore in some cases, but still). [ATTACHX seems to differ from ATTACH by its access register support.] Another option is to use the List and Execute forms of ATTACH(X). Still uses base-displacement to reference data areas, but the (branch) instructions could be relative, or easier to convert if they are not. Richard Zierdt ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> Subject: Re: Relative Instructions not generated by some IBM macros, e.g. STORAGE and ATTACHX 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 https: //urldefense. com/v3/__http: //mason. gmu. edu/*smetz3__;fg!!HaceldhrWm2T3s6H!0xND_zc8Bvfpa8hcIdwVjN6DdGr_KP-LXjVZJxGNGwc55Onb6k4y6J0vRZ31U6XGFzsdpn9NdSr2o_PtjmDQO1vb0MU$ 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 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://mason.gmu.edu/*smetz3__;fg!!HaceldhrWm2T3s6H!0xND_zc8Bvfpa8hcIdwVjN6DdGr_KP-LXjVZJxGNGwc55Onb6k4y6J0vRZ31U6XGFzsdpn9NdSr2o_PtjmDQO1vb0MU$ 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 Confidentiality Warning/Avertissement de confidentialité: This message is intended only for the named recipients. This message may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the named recipient, its employee or its agent, please notify us immediately and permanently destroy this message and any copies you may have. Ce message est destiné uniquement aux destinataires dûment nommés. Il peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire dûment nommé, son employé ou son mandataire, veuillez nous aviser sans tarder et supprimer ce message ainsi que toute copie qui peut en avoir été faite. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
