LL of 0

[Paul Edwards]

The author of pdld informs me that the object code that

z390 produces in response to a =VD has LL set to 0.

But according to page 183 here:

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/SSLTBW_3.1.0/pdf/ieab200_v3r1.pdf

(object code format, not executable format)

... and other messages on IBM-MAIN, what is supposed to

happen is this bit being set:

.b.. .... If 1, add 4 to the length (LL) indicated by the LL bits

Any reason z390 is not following that?

Does anyone have access to z/OS to confirm?

Thanks. Paul.

[Joe Monk]

"The author of pdld informs me that the object code that

z390 produces in response to a =VD has LL set to 0."

In AMODE64/RMODE64 there is no such thing as a VCON (=VD). So the action of z390 seems to be correct.

There is only an ACON (=AD).

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "z390" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to z390+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/z390/508bca0c-b4f0-4ce5-beba-5ebf5f946a1cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Edwards]

Then why does z390 assemble =VD just fine?

[Jon Perryman]

Can you look at https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.1.0?topic=instruction-subfield-3-type-extension  and tell us how we are misinterpreting =VD?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/z390/CAPcd4G9wyU74Z6JWe%3Dpaa9L_qbwW9L0hyvVPj6Ft6H_QGudcDA%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Wade]

Folks,
looks like only me managing moderations and I live on GMT+1.
Dave

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/z390/b35c8a70-36c8-48c9-904f-2987703075e4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Edwards]

I have raised this:

https://github.com/z390development/z390/issues/667

to cover this issue.

BFN. Paul.

[Paul Edwards]

Joe, can you please concede that VD is valid in HLASM,

so that we can put that debate to rest?

Thanks. Paul.

https://listserv.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=IBM-MAIN;68ca3dc2.2508&S=

> Could you please concede that VD is valid HLASM syntax as per:

> https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.1.0?topic=instruction-subfield-3-type-extension

Peter Relson:

Given the evidence, I do concede.
I'm quite sure that the initial implementation of HLASM for 8-byte relocatable entities did not support VD(xxx), and no one ever bothered informing the troops of the new function when it was provided.
It is true that I never worked on the assembler or binder, but I sure used them both a lot and I know what we had to code (and I know what the PL/X compiler implemented when the support was introduced).