Re: Assembler Macros

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:53:03 +0200 "Sven Pran" <no.direct@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:>Never use ST in situations like this (when the alignment of &FLD
:>is unknown), use STCM instead:

:> STCM 1,B'1111',&FLD

Checks his watch. Yes, it is 2007.

This has not been an issue since the 370.

There are very few instructions which require alignment.

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel


Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Assembler Macros
    ... :>is unknown), use STCM instead: ... Checks his watch. ... The assembler error message for bad alignment still occurs, and if you suppress it arbitrarily, you can lose performance in other places. ...
    (comp.lang.asm370)
  • Re: Assembler Macros
    ... :>is unknown), use STCM instead: ... Checks his watch. ... There are very few instructions which require alignment. ... Still there are two main reasons for using STCM rather than ST: ...
    (comp.lang.asm370)
  • Re: Assembler Macros
    ... :>is unknown), use STCM instead: ... There are very few instructions which require alignment. ... Still there are two main reasons for using STCM rather than ST: ... The performance issue is a nit; I'm not even sure you could measure a significant difference. ...
    (comp.lang.asm370)