Re: QPROCT and QPRODT

On 01/05/2010, at 10:54 AM, Richard Thomas wrote:

> "MXD is the same as POS and HI" - Agreed, when you look at the  
> generated
> code within a program. I'm not disputing this.
>
> I naively expected QPRCRTPG to enforce instruction-specific synonyms  
> for the
> indicator/branch forms in the IRP (e.g. POS on ADDN is OK, but MXD  
> and HI
> aren't).


My guess is the parser doesn't care. It verifies the op-code against  
the QPROCT entries (name and optional forms), checks the number of  
parameters and their types against QPROCD, then converts the condition  
text to a bit value and compares (ANDs) that to the bits in flag bytes  
2 (positive) or 3 (negative). It apparently doesn't bother to check  
the mnemonic condition itself makes sense. Not entirely surprising  
since the generated code is the same. If you as the developer want to  
specify HI when POS might make more sense why should the compiler  
force you to do so when the result is the same?

Anyway, thanks for reporting the condition information.

Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    FlyByNight Software         OS/400, i5/OS Technical Specialists

    http://www.flybynight.com.au/
    Phone: +61 2 6657 8251   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\
    Fax:   +61 2 6657 8251                                   \ /
                                                              X
                  ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
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.