It would be awesome if 24-bit would just go away. But are you volunteering to convert all those 24-bit programs? (Do they really exist? Heck, there's a current thread on IBM-MAIN about compatibility with OS/390 1.5.")
IBM has made the philosophical decision that slavish upward compatibility is non-negotiable, except when that principle conflicts with the principle of integrity. I think IBM over-learned the lesson of the "Future System" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Future_Systems_project#Project_end, last paragraph of section) but that is just IMHO. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 4:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: BDAM files On 2017-11-27, at 14:09:56, Charles Mills wrote: > You've got to do a little bit more hoop-jumping for AMODE(31) -- separate storage for the DCBs, and remembering the extra parameters on the various macros. Not prohibitive, but a little more to remember, and a few more possibilities for gotchas. > Wouldn't it be great if a single SET symbol setting could condition all the system macros to generate 24/31/64 bit expansions? Better if 24-bit just went away and never came back. And the horse it rode in on. > I have not mentioned this in a while, but I wrote a paper on converting an xMODE(24) xSAM program to xMODE(31). If anyone wants a copy, just write me off-line. Not a sales pitch for anything; no salesman will call. -- gil
