> There are an infinite number of things that won't work. Why should I try any > of them?
Because you brought up AMODE as if it were relevant to the ILC, and I was pointing out that it was irrelevant. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ILC of BAL, BALR On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:13:35 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> In AMODE 24, BALR sets bit 32 to 0; Yes, and BAL sets it to 1, for the same reason. As I stated, "for 24-bit mode, bits 32-33 are 01 after BALR and 10 after BAL" > in AMODE 31 to 1. I have used this to detect AMODE in code that had to run in > both XA and 370 without causing a program check. Try that with a BAL instead of a BALR and see what happens. > There are an infinite number of things that won't work. Why should I try any of them? And I no longer have a 370 and an XA to test with. -- gil (Why is LISTSERV WWW not quoting your text when I reply?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
