This is great, IBM probably should have done it unless there are proprietary, undocumented oocodes.Chrles, why won't you consider publishing it on CBTThanksZA
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:27 AM, Charles Mills<[email protected]> wrote: +1 I have a table that I maintain to keep it all straight for myself. Short version: ARCH() + 2 = marketing model number. ARCH(11) corresponds to z13. ARCH() - 4 = ZS number. ARCH(11) is equivalent to ZS-7. I will leave the correspondence of ZS to marketing number as an exercise for the reader. I don't know if ARCH() is for "all" of the compilers but I believe it is the same across C/C++, COBOL and PL/I. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 6:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: idiot thought on OPTABLE vs. ARCH I have just been looking around and noticed that most of the z/OS compilers have an ARCH(n) option to specify the level of instructions to generate. As best as I can tell, the number "n" means the same for all of the compilers. So, I was thinking it would be nice if HLASM would bow to "peer pressure" and adopt this parameter as well, in addition to the current OPTABLE. It might even be nice if this would somehow affect the IBM macros similar to the SYSSTATE ARCHLVL= . As an aside, I also wish that the ARCHLVL= numbers were the same as the ARCH(n) numbers. But I recognise that this is impossible at this late date. And I don't know which came first.
