Re: Assembler Macros


"Sven Pran" <no.direct@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

.. . .
Unless I am very much mistaken you get exactly the same result
today as you got 40 years ago by just coding TIME without any
arguments. (Anything else would be contrary to IBM policy which
has always been very strict on source compatibility across
releases).

Not so strict about that when it comes to the TIME macro. As John
pointed out, the date returned for TIME DEC was documented as having
the high order byte zero (I have an old manual to prove that). In the
late 1980's they made the mistake of putting the "century code" in
that byte. Although the century code was zero when they did this, it
was a timebomb waiting to go off. (E.G. PN50632/ PN72740 PL/I DATE
function returning rubbish for year.)


Andy Wood
woodag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a number from 1-10 and never 0?!
    ... Geoff Cox wrote: ... the possibility of smiley_num being equal to zero? ... evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: regexp problem
    ... Jorge Almeida wrote: ... use strict; ... i guess the \D* matches on zero non ... digits before "123". ...
    (perl.beginners)