Very cool. I like the AL.4(...) very much.
I don't know much about DIAG.
some Diags use only Rx and not Ry
Does this mean that there should be variants of DIAG where some of the
parameters (&RY or &DISP) could be omitted? If so, should the macro take care of
Am 21.12.2013 22:13, schrieb M.B.:
> Stepping back from everything that's already been suggested, when I wrote
> this from scratch, I used something simpler:
> MACRO ,
> &LABEL DIAG &RX,&RY,&DISP
> &LABEL DC 0H,X'83',AL.4(&RX,&RY),Y(&DISP)
> MEND ,
> The overwriting of another instruction seems unneccesarily complex. I'm
> guessing that the intent was to allow the assembler to produce register
> cross-reference entries, but some Diags use only Rx and not Ry, some use an
> implied Rx+1 and Ry+1, etc., which means that (the lack of) any
> cross-reference entries can't be trusted anyway. If the overwriting was
> done for another reason, hopefully someone will let me know.
> - mb
> IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu> wrote on
> 12/21/2013 03:11:29 PM: