Tom, your argument doesn't hold water. First, you want your s/360 program to run unchanged. I do too. So does Don.
> Don, > > If you limit the long parms to 32K instead of 64K I have little issue, but > by raising your limit to unauthorized programs to 64K you create an > architectural problem: Old programs loading the "halfword length on a > halfword boundary" length value using the LH instruction will receive > negative values for such long parameters. They are unlikely to > successfully handle such arithmetic values as they would have been very > unanticipated when they were written some 30-35 years ago. > > If a 32K PARM string isn't long enough I hold out little hope that a 64K > string is going to always satisfy the user's requirements. > > -- > Tom Schmidt > Madison, WI > (Yes, old programs will be using LH instead of ICM since they may well have > been written using the 360 instruction set. IBM promised not to break old > programs with incompatible changes, remember?) > I voted for 32K too, but hey, 64K is even better. IBM, by implementing this, will not have "broken" anything. Your s/360 program that is runing today from JCL is expecting no more than 100 bytes. Fine. Why would you pass 64K bytes to a program that is expecting a max of 100? If you do, you've broken it, not IBM. Todd Burch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
