On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:20:25 -0600 "McKown, John" <[email protected]> wrote:
:>> -----Original Message----- :>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List :>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe :>> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:10 PM :>> To: [email protected] :>> Subject: Re: dead zone :>> McKown, John wrote: :>> > I found that parameter in the IARV64 macro. But I don't see :>> anywhere that it is documented. I would guess from the :>> question and answer, that it enables getting 64-bit storage :>> in the 0x0000000080000000 to 0x00000000FFFFFFFF address range? :>> I'm not sure I would refer to it at "64-bit" storage. But, :>> you can now :>> acquire and free large virtual memory objects above 2G and below 4G. :>I see why it is not, technically, 64 bit storage. But the program must be AMODE(64) in order to address it. right? Yes. :>And you likely could __NOT__ use it for parms to be passed to other programs or system services, even in AMODE(64). Hum, to me, for me, fairly useless. Why not? Use a 64 bit pointer. The only reason the black hole was created was because the high order bit issue where a 64 bit program passed an uncleaned 31 bit address may overlay a different area. But if all 4 byte addresses are clean there is no reason to not use the x'80000000'-x'FFFFFFFF' area. -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
