Re: QPROCT and QPRODT

> I'm not convinced that MI allows such behaviour - but, as always, I'll
> be
> happy to be proven wrong.

I cannot imagine any reason why it would care.  And your empirical evidence
of what MI does or does not allow would seem to supersede either of our
opinions.   :)

But beyond that I can only leave it to the authorities.  I am not privy to
nor expert in the design of the machine interface. 

Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
"More than half (55 percent) of women undergraduates are female."
        -- About Women on Campus, newsletter published by the National


> > I can't see the subtle difference you allude to - but that means very
> > little
> > :-)
> 
> I mean that those are the result flags that are set.  You are assuming
> that
> MI limits you to test only the flags that are set by the most recent
> instruction.  I am suggesting that you can test for things that were
> not set
> by this instruction.
> 
> I used to do this in TRS80 assembler.  I forget now the exact situation
> (and
> instructions), but I used to do something like:
>    ADDC RESULT,12       Add 12 to RESULT, with carry
>    CMP  RESULT,16       Compare RESULT against 16
>    JMP  MYTAG,EC        Jump to MYTAG if equal or carry
> 
> Assume that carry was not set nor reset by CMP.  I could still test for
> it
> after CMP.
> 
> Now I realize this is not TRS80 assembler (thankfully).  I also realize
> that
> I'm not doing a branch on the same instruction line as compare (TRS
> lacked
> that).  But I imagine similar rules apply.


_______________________________________________
This is the MI Programming on the AS400 / iSeries (MI400) mailing list
To post a message email: MI400-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mi400
or email: MI400-request-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/mi400.