Nobody asked me, but you know what I would like? I would like it if the HLASM, the XLC compiler, the PoP, and the marketing model names all used the same terminology. For example, the HLASM uses MACHINE(Z-SERIES-2) etc.; the XLC compiler defines ARCH(2) etc. which unless I am mistaken is not the same thing; the PoP uses phrases like "Program Exceptions: Operation, if the extended-immediate facility is not installed;" and marketing of course uses names like z196. I'd like to see a consistent terminology for a particular level of hardware or availability of a hardware feature. I maintain two products with two different customer sets and marketing philosophies, both of which are implemented in a mix of XLC and HLASM, and translating product management's "we want to support the so-and-so model and above" into MACHINE and ARCH options, and assembler op code availability, is always more of a detective project than it needs to be IMHO.
For some of us it may be some other mix of languages, and the same advantage of consistency would apply. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Cole Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is there a correspondence between 64-bit IBM mainframes and PoOps editions levels? Thanks to all of you who responded to my query. I now have what I need. Let me make a couple of closing responses. At 9/17/2012 05:41 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: >The only IBM-resident page I ever found was this one on the VM side of >their sites: >http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/jelliott/cmosproc.html Peter, this is exactly what I wanted. Thanks! At 9/17/2012 06:42 PM, John Gilmore wrote: >[...] of the publication you call the PoOps---Why the 's'?--- The "s" is for the plural arising from "Principles". >and I prefer to call the PrOp [...] Hmmm... maybe I'll start using "ProOps" At 9/17/2012 06:42 PM, John Gilmore wrote: >You did not make clear just what you want to do with this information; >I can only guess, perhaps wrongly, thjat you want to relate the >usability of some assembly-language features to model numbers; and you >may well be able to do something of that sort usefully if only very >inexactly. It has to do with the actual machine instructions I use in z/XDC's internal code. Currently, I limit myself to only those mi's doc'd in the -00 edition of ...uh... zProOps. I'm just trying to see what the effect would be on my customers if I started using newer mi's. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
