It might have been ideal if IBM had in fact supported the ETDEAM bit in
z/OS R3 but as it apparently didn't you are going to have to have
exception code anyway. IBM is not going to service unsupported releases
and even on supported releases unless they defined Yet Another Flag
somewhere like the CVT how would you know the APAR fix was installed?
My .02 is be happy it has been added and that it will work from r8 going
forward. Code logic for releases prior to r8. If running on R8 or >
NOP, else if running on R3 & z/ARCH do the SAM64, else NOP. In your
first release to mandate R8 as a minimum supported code level you can
remove the code.
Despite Art Bell's assertion to the contrary I have not seen a working
time machine and this train already left the station. Nothing IBM can
do is going to save you work or provide any significant benefit or
capability to business customers so why even ask. I would bet all get
out of a PMR is a doc update so it might be easier to send a reader's
comment form instead so they update the R8 publications to document it
was new at R8.
Best Regards,
Sam Knutson, GEICO
Performance and Availability Management
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(office) 301.986.3574
Youth and skill are no match for experience and treachery.
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Smith
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 11:47 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Program Call (PC) routine in AMODE(64)
======================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: "Peter Relson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 7/23/2006 1:12 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Program Call (PC) routine in AMODE(64)
>Will the ETDEAM bit support be retrofitted to earlier z/OS levels? The
>earlier the better for me.
As with almost everything considered for retrofitting, it would likely
require a significant business case to make it happen, unless it was
documented that it worked (i.e., documented to work, but did not work)
in which case an APAR would be considered.
Dare one ask what's the big deal? Can't you just place SAM64 as the
first instruction of your PC routine and get the same affect (aside from
the additional cycle(s) for the instruction)?
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
======================================================
As I mentioned in another message, the extended addressability guide
says z/OS V1R3 supports the ETDEAM bit.
My PC routines must run on OS/390 2.10 (31-bit box), as well as z/OS, so
they cant have SAM64 as the first instruction. Instead, when I create
the entry table I check for HBB7708 (V1R5) and set the ETDEAM bit. The
PC routines are written to tolerate either addressing mode, but if the
caller is AM64 and calls my PC routine without the ETDEAM bit ON, then
the caller gets a program check.
Jeffrey D. Smith
Farsight Systems Corporation
24 BURLINGTON DR
LONGMONT, CO 80501
303-774-9381 direct
303-709-8153 cell
303-484-6170 fax
====================
This email/fax message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this
email/fax is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy all paper and electronic copies of the original message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
