On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:52 AM Rick Troth <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been trying to follow this thread, but I'm not seeing the "what's > the problem we're trying to solve?" part. (I think I saw the question, > but didn't see the answer.) >
Paul seems to have a "hang up" about AM-31. He proposed a similar set of arguments over on IBM_MAIN that IBM needs to an AM-32 (his terminology) on z/OS. In z/OS's case, he seems to want to abandon the historic calling sequence entirely (where bit 0 -- high order -- is used as an indicator that this is end of the list). I'm not really sure why other than "AM-32 good, AM-31 bad". Or some sort of bullying done to him by Intel people who denigrate the IBMz because "it only has 31 bit addressing? Not 32 bit?!? How stupid!!! Must be a <redacted> machine." IMO, any more, given that most Intel Linux are going 64 bit "only", I am trying to do that in all my IBMz software. Which is a PITA in z/OS because many of the historic interfaces have not been updated. And executable code cannot reside "above the bar". I.e. executable code must reside in the 0GiB-2GiB range. Again, due to only a 32 bit area reserved for interrupt addresses in the z/OS equivalent of the kernel data structures. -- Once a government places vague notions of public safety and security above the preservation of freedom, a general loss of liberty is sure to follow. GCS Griffin -- Pelaran Alliance -- TFS Guardian (book) Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
