RE: Bit Operations

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

*IN50 = (%BITAND(CHAR:x'80') = x'80');
*IN51 = (%BITAND(CHAR:x'40') = x'40');
*IN52 = (%BITAND(CHAR:x'20') = x'20');
*IN53 = (%BITAND(CHAR:x'10') = x'10');
*IN54 = (%BITAND(CHAR:x'08') = x'08');
*IN55 = (%BITAND(CHAR:x'04') = x'04');
*IN56 = (%BITAND(CHAR:x'02') = x'02');
*IN57 = (%BITAND(CHAR:x'01') = x'01');

Better yet:

d BIT0            c                   x'80'
d BIT1            c                   x'40'
d BIT2            c                   x'20'
d BIT3            c                   x'10'
d BIT4            c                   x'08'
d BIT5            c                   x'04'
d BIT6            c                   x'02'
d BIT7            c                   x'01'

*IN50 = (%BITAND(CHAR:BIT0) = BIT0;
*IN51 = (%BITAND(CHAR:BIT1) = BIT1;
*IN52 = (%BITAND(CHAR:BIT2) = BIT2;
*IN53 = (%BITAND(CHAR:BIT3) = BIT3;
*IN54 = (%BITAND(CHAR:BIT4) = BIT4;
*IN55 = (%BITAND(CHAR:BIT5) = BIT5;
*IN56 = (%BITAND(CHAR:BIT6) = BIT6;
*IN57 = (%BITAND(CHAR:BIT7) = BIT7;

> From: Fisher, Don
> 
> Looks like a good idea to me, but you're using TESTB to determine the
> status
> of each bit.  That op-code is not available in free-form, which is why
I'm
> trying to figure out the equivalent using %BITAND.
> 
> Were I to substitute %BITAND for TESTB in your example, would it look
like
> the following:
> *IN50 = %BITAND(CHAR:x'F0')
> *IN51 = %BITAND(CHAR:x'F1')
> *IN52 = %BITAND(CHAR:x'F2')
> *IN53 = %BITAND(CHAR:x'F3')
> *IN54 = %BITAND(CHAR:x'F4')
> *IN55 = %BITAND(CHAR:x'F5')
> *IN56 = %BITAND(CHAR:x'F6')
> *IN57 = %BITAND(CHAR:x'F7')?