The problem with the language processors is that they are developed by different groups. And there is apparently not a "coordinating body" so that PARMs with identical meanings don't end up with identical values. As far as marketing is concerned, they aren't even on the same planet as the techies and speak a different language with their own distinctive "world view".
-- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * [email protected] * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Charles Mills > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:57 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Is there a correspondence between 64-bit IBM mainframes > and PoOps editions levels? > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
