I confess to not having slogged through this thread, but from the beginning I've wondered why no one has suggested the static system symbol &SYSALVL. System symbols can be queried from pretty much any environment. They're set automatically at IPL. Maybe OP needs more detail...
. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@sce.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 10:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Two corrections: 1. At several points in this thread I think I may have said "facility bits in the CVT." I wuz of course confused. Make that "facility bits in the PSA." 2. My last bullet below is muddled. Make that "before I start relying on ARCH(12) and therefore need to distinguish it from ARCH(11). As I am currently tentatively relying on ARCH(9) I have about six years ..." Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 9:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > Charles Mills has a reason. But part of that reason is that he's > running ... Right. And dealing with imperfect co-workers dealing with imperfect information from sales and pre-sales and a boss who says "can't we give them a nice message rather than a S0C1?" > I'm actually curious if you can tell at runtime what C/C++ ARCH level was > this module compiled at Per the U/G, "[The C macro] __ARCH__ is predefined to the integer value of the ARCH compiler option." That is what I am using. > What are you actually trying to accomplish with the tests of the > facility bits to determine machine? I like Kirk's approach. I have code that works now using CSRSI and a machine type lookup table, but I think I am going to switch to Kirk's approach because - I think it should work more reliably for zPDT and Hercules. (I know z/OS is not licensed for Hercules, but I hear rumors that some people may be running it there, and my job is writing code that works, not enforcing IBM's license terms. - I think it may be a better solution under VM. - It is a somewhat better approach for the situation where code written and shipped today is running on some future IBM machine. My current code says "if you don't recognize the type, it must be new and therefore okay." Kirk's approach will presumably return ARCH(11) for an ARCH(12) machine. All I need to do is update Kirk's code before I start relying on ARCH(13) and therefore need to distinguish it from ARCH(12). As I am currently tentatively relying on ARCH(9) I have about eight years ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
