<interrupted email resent> Paul Gilmartin wrote:
| But no SVCs. Probably no system facilities understand | 64-bit addresses. SVCs are at best obsolescent. We all perforce use them, but when I am beginning at square one I implement only PC-based schemes. - Show quoted text - -- John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA On 12/6/12, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > | But no SVCs. Probably no system facilities understand > | 64-bit addresses. > > SVCs are obsolescent. We all perforce use them, but when I am beginning at > sq > > On 12/6/12, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:09:37 -0600, Mike Schwab wrote: >> >>>I am wondering if z/OS 2.x will bring 64 bit address constants into >>>the operating system so everything can run above the 2GB bar. >>> >> Ever so slowly. I understand that 1.13 will let code run above the 4GiB >> (not 2) bar. (How does it get there?) It can even tolerate interrupts >> and >> redispatch from them. I suspect that from the developers' point that's >> a major advance. What goes in the IRB? Where does it keep the >> Grande OPSW? But no SVCs. Probably no system facilities understand >> 64-bit addresses. Likely the next step is SVCs, but the arguments will >> still need to reside below (even like access methods yet). >> >> The software bloat juggernaut will force IBM's hand. >> >> -- gil >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> > > > -- > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA > > t. > -- John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA t. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
