IBM promised to never use opcode 00, and that's what I use when I want (E)SPIE in the skie.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Darrold Usher <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 8:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: S0c4 creation How about create a S0C1? On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 7:21 AM Peter Relson <[email protected]> wrote: > Bernd O wrote > <snip> > I'd suggest to be very careful with such codings; > a co-worker some years ago did this and - by accident - the code ran > privileged, > which caused the whole LPAR to hang. > > Same goes for ST at address zero, which was suggested by another poster. > </snip> > > I challenge both of those. > > The first will never happen unless something changed to key 0 (being > privileged is relevant only to the extent that you could then change to key > 0). And that doesn't happen without intent. > > The second will never happen outside of the OS itself in the absence of an > APARable z/OS error (related to what we refer to as low-core protect). > > Peter Relson > z/OS Core Technology Design > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
