> -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne Driscoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 5:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: z/OS 1.8 Conditional Storage Obtain/Getmain Return Code > > Peter, > While you have a "somewhat" valid point, I think that IBM did a much > better job at backward compatibility with 31 <-> 64 bit than any others.
Undoubtedly true, but we're used to seeing exceptional compatibility from IBM, so we expect that and more. > In most other 64 bit os's, to run 64 bit, most applications have to be > recompiled. A 64 bit process space CANNOT invoke 32 bit services (they > just can't don't ask), Also true, I have seen both of those. > so yes, while IBM could have done better, they > did document the fact that return codes are 32 bit values, did they not? > Just because some thinks make assumptions, the doc is clear. Also true. As I tried to indicate, it's only a grumble, not a true complaint or problem. It just seemed like such an outrageous statement to make, that they *would* not go back and make all service/SVC/PC/etc. routines 64-bit-clean in their returned values, that I just had to pipe up and say something about it. I guess my cranky side just came out. Happy Friday. Peter This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
