Oppolzer - Informatik / Blog


Blog-Hauptseite      Neuester Artikel      Älterer Artikel      Neuerer Artikel      Älterer gleiche Kategorie      Neuerer gleiche Kategorie

ASSEMBLER-L - Unklarheiten bei der Operanden-Reihenfolge im PoOp

Subject:

Re: Load and Add

From:

Bernd Oppolzer <bernd.oppolzer@T-ONLINE.DE>

Reply-To:

IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>

Date:

2013.02.20 11:31:49


I recall that I had some difficulties with the PoOp when I first had to use it
in the mid 1980s, maybe with this numbering scheme of the operands, but must
operations involve only two operands, some have three, and it is always clear
from the context, what happens. BTW: we had a PoOp translated to German in those
days which was not bad - normally I don't like translated IBM brochures, because
they have bugs - the English originals are better IMHO.

But, when you once get accustomed to the logic of the PoOp, it's no problem any
more.

Kind regards

Bernd



Am 20.02.2013 06:23, schrieb J.E.:
> P.G. noted:
>> I would be careful not to create confusion by inviting undue attention
>> to the notion of "sequential position".
>      COMPARE AND SWAP
>      CS    R1,R3,D2(B2)    [RS-a]
>
> If you wrote
>      CS      0,4,X
> the assembler says operand 1 is 0, operand 2 is 4, and operand 3 is X,
> while the PoP swaps the latter two.
>
> Assembler programmers must deal with the confusion caused by multiple uses
> of the word "operand". The PoP sense (and numbering) is different from the
> assembler's sense. Sadly, the assembler's notation is just as old as that
> of the PoP, and generations of assembler programmers have had to cope with
> the differences..

Blog-Hauptseite      Neuester Artikel      Älterer Artikel      Neuerer Artikel      Älterer gleiche Kategorie      Neuerer gleiche Kategorie