The dual path requirement put me off doing anything with it for a long time. I thought using it to follow suspect pointer chains instead of using ESPIE/ESTAE would be worth dual pathing the ESPIE/ESTAE code, but that is now moot.
Robert -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> On Behalf Of Mike Shaw Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 15:23 To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Removal of transactional execution facility Maybe Dan Greiner can comment on why IBM went to the trouble to introduce this powerful facility and then pull it? ISVs who implemented code using the transactional execution facility might feel kinda "had" now... Mike Shaw MVS/QuickRef Support Group Chicago-Soft, Ltd. On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:17 PM Ngan, Robert (DXC Luxoft) < robert.n...@dxc.com> wrote: > In the Statement of general direction in the z16 announcement at: > > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3EajRQyLQEC62msLUyNtDVZ6xn?u=https%3A%2 > F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fcommon%2Fssi%2FShowDoc.wss%3FdocURL%3D%2Fcommon%2Fss > i%2Frep_ca%2F1%2F897%2FENUS122-001%2Findex.html > > It says IBM will remove support for the transactional execution > facility, I guess there's no point in attempting to exploit this now. > > Robert Ngan > DXC Luxoft >
