Re: Significant Bits
In listserv%201005312309527505.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 05/31/2010 at 11:09 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said: You forgot 6502, A4, and (perhaps) ARM. No, I just saw no need either to go back that far or to mention the apple ][ again. But if you know of a good way to forget the 6502, I'd be interested. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
In 1464038870-1275413163-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-5445958...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry, on 06/01/2010 at 05:26 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said: No, because the '1' and the '2' are in the same position, in decimal, assuming that is what your representation is in that base. So you admit that what you wrote was nonsense. Regardless of the base, which cannot be binary, the above both have the same order of magnitude. That was my point. And, I never said anything to the contrary. Once again you're lying. You made the claim in 713282747-1274797489-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-9532761...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry: It also gives you the order of magnitude. Even if you respond to me directly, you are still blocked. I'm honored, assuming that you're telling the truth this time. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: What are the current Honeywell offerings was Re: Significant Bits
In oemrv5p8mvgj7846tl6vr3a0u8c8trv...@4ax.com, on 05/26/2010 at 11:33 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: What if any are the current Honeywell offerings? Didn't Honeywell sell all of the GE line to B.U.L.L.? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
Thank you, Shmuel ... I suddenly no longer feel quite so old ... vbg Tom Puddicombe Mainframe Performance Capacity Planning CSC 71 Deerfield Rd, Meriden, CT 06450 ITIS | (860) 428-3252 | tpudd...@csc.com | www.csc.com This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/31/2010 08:04 PM Subject: Re: Significant Bits In f255efe0ecf08c4a9c1db6aff4235417100f8...@ch2wpmail1.na.ds.ussco.com, on 05/25/2010 at 07:58 AM, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com said: So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the most significant bit I thought that Q was the most significant and P the next most significant. G,D R -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On 31 May 2010 19:54, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote: In 713282747-1274797489-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-9532761...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry, on 05/25/2010 at 02:25 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said: It also gives you the order of magnitude. So 100 and 200 have different orders of magnitude? In their binary representations they do. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
So 100 and 200 have different orders of magnitude? No, because the '1' and the '2' are in the same position, in decimal, assuming that is what your representation is in that base. Regardless of the base, which cannot be binary, the above both have the same order of magnitude. The order of magnitude is positional, not determined by the value in the position. And, I never said anything to the contrary. Arguing the nits, after the question was answered over a week ago, is a waste of band-width and time. And, don't bother responding. I won't see it, unless it's quoted by somebody else. Even if you respond to me directly, you are still blocked. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:26:08 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: So 100 and 200 have different orders of magnitude? No, because the '1' and the '2' are in the same position, in decimal, assuming that is what your representation is in that base. Regardless of the base, which cannot be binary, the above both have the same order of magnitude. The order of magnitude is positional, not determined by the value in the position. And, I never said anything to the contrary. Yes you did, and I quote: On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:25:04 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the most significant bit It's not just in binary. The left-most digit in any base is the most significant because it changes the least as you count up. It also gives you the order of magnitude. /quote Perhaps it is not what you meant, but it is what you wrote. Arguing the nits, after the question was answered over a week ago, is a waste of band-width and time. And what is this? There were other responses to your comment last week. Perhaps you didn't notice because they were all from people who you block? And, don't bother responding. Yeah, I know, you like to have the last word. Make your statement and then cover your ears, lest you hear something you don't like. I won't see it, unless it's quoted by somebody else. Even if you respond to me directly, you are still blocked. sarcasm Gee, that is a very adult attitude. /sarcasm -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
orders of magnitude (was: significant bits)
In ordinary parlance 'order of magnitude' is indeed implicitly decimal. Other order-of-magnitude schemes are, however, in common scientific use. In particular 'binary order of magnitude' is an entirely legitimate, much used notion. The non-negative powers of 2 are 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256,...; and the decimal numbers 100 and 200 thus have different binary orders of magnitude. (I leave a precise formulation using binary logarithms as an exercise for the interested reader.) Moreover, there are many other scientifically legitimate, in part arbitrary notions of order of magnitude, e.g., the one used for the electromagnetic spectrum. Here, where context can sometimes be elusive, it would be a good practice to specify either decimal order of magnitude or binary order of magnitude explicitly. John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA _ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
In f255efe0ecf08c4a9c1db6aff4235417100f8...@ch2wpmail1.na.ds.ussco.com, on 05/25/2010 at 07:58 AM, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com said: So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the most significant bit I thought that Q was the most significant and P the next most significant. G,D R -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
In listserv%201005251310035941.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 05/25/2010 at 01:10 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said: Apple is x86 Some are, some aren't. Neither Motorola nor POWER is x86. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: significant bits
In listserv%201005251137102673.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 05/25/2010 at 11:37 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said: Is there a Hebrew edition of the PoOp? Lo Tish'al, lo tsapeir. Does the CPT Theorem apply? No, von Nagle. Zero-origin? A self respecting language lets the programmer specify the index range. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
In 713282747-1274797489-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-9532761...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry, on 05/25/2010 at 02:25 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said: It also gives you the order of magnitude. So 100 and 200 have different orders of magnitude? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
In 1434432532-1274814563-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-4325796...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry, on 05/25/2010 at 07:09 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said: I thought they were still Motorola chips, which are also little endian. Motorola had more than one product line. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
In of79297a17.598e3013-on0725772e.00441c13-8525772e.00449...@aexp.com, on 05/25/2010 at 08:28 AM, Alexander M Brash1 alexander.m.bra...@aexp.com said: I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another coffee). When IBM refers to things like meaning of bit when set in SMF documentation, is bit 0 the most or least significant bit? Most. The rightmost bit is bit 0 right? No, the leftmost. Note that the bit numbering is arbitrary and you should not expect it to be unchanged going between unrelated product lines. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Mon, 31 May 2010 19:53:44 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In listserv%201005251310035941.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 05/25/2010 at 01:10 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said: Apple is x86 Some are, some aren't. Neither Motorola nor POWER is x86. You forgot 6502, A4, and (perhaps) ARM. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:38:32 -0400, David Andrews wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote: The 68000 and its successors are big endian. They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. Didn't PPC go both ways? (I vaguely remember a talk by David Barnes a few years ago, where he mentioned the OS/2 PPC port making use of the mixed-endian-ness of PPC.) Apparently so. My comment (68000 and its successors) was in response to Ted's statement that the Motorola processors were little endian. I was referring to the Motorola designed 68000, 68010, 68020, 68030, 68040 and 68060, not the IBM designed PPC, which was also manufactured by Motorola. The 680x0 series had an architecture that is rather similar to the 370/XA, but without bimodal support. A major difference is that eight of the registers were address registers and the other eight were data registers. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com (Tom Marchant) writes: Apparently so. My comment (68000 and its successors) was in response to Ted's statement that the Motorola processors were little endian. I was referring to the Motorola designed 68000, 68010, 68020, 68030, 68040 and 68060, not the IBM designed PPC, which was also manufactured by Motorola. The 680x0 series had an architecture that is rather similar to the 370/XA, but without bimodal support. A major difference is that eight of the registers were address registers and the other eight were data registers. 68k refs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000_family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000 801/risc from early beginnings was single processor w/o cache consistency support. I've periodically claimed that whole 801 was adverse reaction to failed future system effort http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys and to do the exact opposite in terms of hardware complexity. Also along the way there were periodic observations of not wanting to pay the significant hit on performance and thruput that standard 370 (multiprocessor) cache consistency cost. some old email mentioning 801 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#801 and other posts mentioning 801 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 We did ha/cmp (high availability cluster multiprocessor) cluster scalup for rios/power because w/o cache consistency ... that was about the only available scaleup option offerred (couldn't hook up rios chips to SCI ... since rios/power design didn't have any provisions for cache consistency operation). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp Somerset was then the joint IBM, Motorola, apple, etc ... effort to achieve a number of things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_600 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_e600 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_G4 .. including single chip processor and support cache consistency for SMP. Motorola did have a (non-801) RISC, the 88k that supported cache consistency and had somewhat scalable cache consistency bus (and some of somerset could be described as adapting 88k cache consistency to 801) ... and also not wanting to pay the significant hit on machine performance that standard 370 (multiprocessor) cache consistency cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_88000 The executive we were reporting too at the time (when we started ha/cmp) went over to headup somerset (he had also previously worked at motorola before coming to ibm). misc. posts mentioning power rios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER The above refers to somerset as the AIM alliance (Apple, IBM, Motorola) ... also reference that Motorola had original tried to get Apple to upgrade their then use of 68k to Motorola's 88k risc processors. the lore about more recent move of apple to intel chips was that power/pc work was falling way behind in doing low-power chips for laptops. recent reference to 801 in the late 70s converging the large number of different corporate microprocessors to 801: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010j.html#1 -- 42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:06:27 +1000, Shane Ginnane ibm-m...@tpg.com.au wrote: One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. Shane ... Like when you port an application from x86 Linux to zLinux or vice versa. I spent way too many hours one day trying to figure that one out until the light finally went on and I earned my Jeff Foxworthy sign. Don -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
I think you mean Bill Engvall... ... Here's your sign Donald Grinsell dgrins...@mt.gov 5/26/2010 11:37 AM Like when you port an application from x86 Linux to zLinux or vice versa. I spent way too many hours one day trying to figure that one out until the light finally went on and I earned my Jeff Foxworthy sign. Don -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
ibm-m...@tpg.com.au (Shane Ginnane) writes: One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. long ago and far away ... when I was undergraduate in the 60s and adding tty/ascii terminal support to cp67 ... i tried to get the 2702 to do something it couldn't quite do. the base cp67 terminal support could automatically differentiate between 1052s 2741s ... didn't need to specify terminal type in any i/o gen ... could use a common modem pool with single base dial-in number, etc. So i did a bunch of work to be able to differentiate 1052, 2741, tty. The 2702 had SAD command that could switch the kind of line-scanner with each port ... but had taken a short-cut and hard-wired oscillator for line-speed (1052s 2741s were same line-speed). For leased lines that went into port with correct line-speed ... the automatic recognition would just work; however wouldn't work with a single dial-in number to common modem pool since wouldn't select the appropriate port (and bit-rate). so this was somewhat the motivation for the univ. to start the clone controller effort ... reverse engineering mainframe channel interface and building a channel interface board for an interdata/3 ... programmed to emulate 2702 ... with the addition of how software line-scanner on the ports which would dynamically determine bit rate (110 or 134.+). the first bug was channel interface board wasn't releasing channel frequently enough and the 360/67 timer would redlight (i.e. it tic'ed approx 13mics and each tic had to update location 80 ... if there was still a pending location 80 update when the next timer tic came around ... it would machine check). the next bug was overlooking 2702 line-scanner which placed leading bit in low-order bit position of byte ... filling byte in reverse order (i.e. 2702 terminal bytes were bit reverse). default ascii/tty would put bits into corresponding bit position as it came off the line. as long as things were always bit-reversed terminal world ... things were ok ... just have a fixed translate table to handle both ascii-ebcidic translation and bit reversal. things got little more of problem when there was ascii over lan coming in whole byte (w/o bit reversal) and terminal with bit-reversed ascii bytes. there was also some writeup blaming four of us at the univ. for clone controller business. the interdata/3 involved into a cluster with interdata/4 dedicated to the channel interface and one or more interdata/3s dedicated to line-scanner function. then perkin-elmer bought interdata ... and the box continued to live on and be sold under the perkin-elmer brand. misc. past posts mentioning clone controller business http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm this writeup ... blames motivation for future system effort on the clone controller business. http://www.ecole.org/Crisis_and_change_1995_1.htm quote from above: IBM tried to react by launching a major project called the 'Future System' (FS) in the early 1970's. The idea was to get so far ahead that the competition would never be able to keep up, and to have such a high level of integration that it would be impossible for competitors to follow a compatible niche strategy. However, the project failed because the objectives were too ambitious for the available technology. Many of the ideas that were developed were nevertheless adapted for later generations. Once IBM had acknowledged this failure, it launched its 'box strategy', which called for competitiveness with all the different types of compatible sub-systems. But this proved to be difficult because of IBM's cost structure and its RD spending, and the strategy only resulted in a partial narrowing of the price gap between IBM and its rivals. ... snip ... other past posts mentioning future system http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys and then there have been a number of references that the distraction of future system ... and policy of letting 370 product pipelines to got dry ... allowed clone processors to gain market foothold. http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm then there is reference in fergus morris book about what happened to corporate culture after the FS failure ... part of quote here: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#33 -- 42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
What are the current Honeywell offerings was Re: Significant Bits
On 25 May 2010 07:27:41 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. Not just x86 -- Solaris, Apple, DEC, HP, Honeywell, etc. have models that are little-endian. What if any are the current Honeywell offerings? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Significant Bits
Hi list, I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another coffee). When IBM refers to things like meaning of bit when set in SMF documentation, is bit 0 the most or least significant bit? The rightmost bit is bit 0 right? I'm going to get that other coffee now. Thank you for your patience. Best, Alexander Alexander Brash | CISO | (347) 702-1436 Steve Dover steve.do...@ccbcc.com Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu 05/25/2010 07:58 AM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu To IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu cc Subject Re: ServerPac and HBBN700G problem (WAS OEM) John, I have not opened one yet (got sidetracked, installing some of the 3rd party software I need), but have it on my list. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html American Express made the following annotations on Tue May 25 2010 05:29:21 ** This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Tue May 25 2010 05:29:21 Ce courrier et toute pièce jointe qu'il contient sont réservés au seul destinataire indiqué et peuvent renfermer des renseignements confidentiels et privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou distribution du courrier ou de toute pièce jointe est interdite. Si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier et détruire immédiatement le courrier et les pièces jointes. Merci. ** --- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
The rightmost bit is bit 0 right? No - Bit0 is the left-most bit Rob Scott Lead Developer Rocket Software 275 Grove Street * Newton, MA 02466-2272 * USA Tel: +1.617.614.2305 Email: rsc...@rs.com Web: www.rocketsoftware.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander M Brash1 Sent: 25 May 2010 13:28 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Significant Bits Hi list, I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another coffee). When IBM refers to things like meaning of bit when set in SMF documentation, is bit 0 the most or least significant bit? The rightmost bit is bit 0 right? I'm going to get that other coffee now. Thank you for your patience. Best, Alexander Alexander Brash | CISO | (347) 702-1436 Steve Dover steve.do...@ccbcc.com Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu 05/25/2010 07:58 AM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu To IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu cc Subject Re: ServerPac and HBBN700G problem (WAS OEM) John, I have not opened one yet (got sidetracked, installing some of the 3rd party software I need), but have it on my list. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html American Express made the following annotations on Tue May 25 2010 05:29:21 ** This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. American Express a ajout? le commentaire suivant le Tue May 25 2010 05:29:21 Ce courrier et toute pi?ce jointe qu'il contient sont r?serv?s au seul destinataire indiqu? et peuvent renfermer des renseignements confidentiels et privil?gi?s. Si vous n'?tes pas le destinataire pr?vu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou distribution du courrier ou de toute pi?ce jointe est interdite. Si vous avez re?u cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier et d?truire imm?diatement le courrier et les pi?ces jointes. Merci. ** --- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander M Brash1 Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:28 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Significant Bits Hi list, I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another coffee). When IBM refers to things like meaning of bit when set in SMF documentation, is bit 0 the most or least significant bit? The rightmost bit is bit 0 right? I'm going to get that other coffee now. Thank you for your patience. Best, Alexander Alexander Brash | CISO | (347) 702-1436 In IBM z literature, bit 0 is the left-most bit. Like byte 0 is the left-most byte in a word. The bits are numbered from left to right, starting at 0, just like in normal English. I.e. do a count up, not a count down. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of McKown, John -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Alexander M Brash1 Hi list, I think I'm having a brain drain this morning (or just need another coffee). When IBM refers to things like meaning of bit when set in SMF documentation, is bit 0 the most or least significant bit? The rightmost bit is bit 0 right? I'm going to get that other coffee now. Thank you for your patience. In IBM z literature, bit 0 is the left-most bit. Like byte 0 is the left-most byte in a word. The bits are numbered from left to right, starting at 0, just like in normal English. I.e. do a count up, not a count down. So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the most significant bit and: Bit7 is the least significant bit in a byte; Bit15 is the least significant bit in a halfword; Bit31 is the least significant bit in a fullword; Etc. -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. Shane ... On Tue, May 25th, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Chase, John wrote: So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the most significant bit and: Bit7 is the least significant bit in a byte; Bit15 is the least significant bit in a halfword; Bit31 is the least significant bit in a fullword; Etc. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
Actually they are two separate issues. I worked on a CDC minicomputer that was big-endian but their literature nonetheless numbered the bits from least to most significant. When I questioned this -- having been brought up on the IBM convention of numbering from the most significant -- the CDC folks said our way is perfectly logical: 2**0 is represented by bit 0, 2**1 by bit 1, and so forth -- and I had to admit they had a point. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Shane Ginnane Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Significant Bits One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the most significant bit It's not just in binary. The left-most digit in any base is the most significant because it changes the least as you count up. It also gives you the order of magnitude. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. Not just x86 -- Solaris, Apple, DEC, HP, Honeywell, etc. have models that are little-endian. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:25:04 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: The left-most digit in any base is the most significant because it changes the least as you count up. It also gives you the order of magnitude. No, the order of magnitude is determined by the number of significant digits. Or, in the case of a floating point number, the value of the exponent. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
True, but the leftmost bit might not be called bit 0. That's the point of this discussion. You could call it bit 8 or, for that matter, bit a or bit i. Actually, your definition is circular. Yes, the digit that changes least is by definition the most significant, but there is no need for it to be on the left. There is no reason I could not design a logically consistent numbering system that put the most significant digits at the right. It would have certain advantages in computation, as addition and subtraction are usually performed starting with the least significant digits. Numbers with the significant digits at the left typically require the extra step of right-justification before one can perform addition or subtraction. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Significant Bits So, continuing that thought, Bit0 is always the most significant bit It's not just in binary. The left-most digit in any base is the most significant because it changes the least as you count up. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: significant bits
The original Kirk-Spock Star Trek sequence included an episode in which the two protagonists, both were both black and white, one with a black left side and a white right white side and the other with a white left side a black right side, pursued each other, noisily, across the universe and down the corridors of time because of this irreconcilable difference. Arguments, most of them specious afterthoughts, can be made for both the left-to-right and right-to-left bit numbering schemes and even for zero- and one-origin numbering when either is used. In fact any such decision was originally an arbitrary one and everyone's position is chiefly a matter of which tradition he or she was first exposed to. I am a left-to-right, zero-origin person, and it has been clear to me, for decades and beyond all argument, that the benighted people who take other positions should be lobotomized if not extirpated. Some of them, however, are good friends whom I should miss. Argument with them is nevertheless futile; and, as linguists for long embargoed all discussion of the origins of language, we should foreswear discussion of the relative merits of bit-numbering schemes. John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA _ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: significant bits
Wow, John! Humor!!! I concur with a big grin on my face and still chuckling at the lobotomy reference! -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of john gilmore Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: significant bits The original Kirk-Spock Star Trek sequence included an episode in which the two protagonists, both were both black and white, one with a black left side and a white right white side and the other with a white left side a black right side, pursued each other, noisily, across the universe and down the corridors of time because of this irreconcilable difference. Arguments, most of them specious afterthoughts, can be made for both the left-to-right and right-to-left bit numbering schemes and even for zero- and one-origin numbering when either is used. In fact any such decision was originally an arbitrary one and everyone's position is chiefly a matter of which tradition he or she was first exposed to. I am a left-to-right, zero-origin person, and it has been clear to me, for decades and beyond all argument, that the benighted people who take other positions should be lobotomized if not extirpated. Some of them, however, are good friends whom I should miss. Argument with them is nevertheless futile; and, as linguists for long embargoed all discussion of the origins of language, we should foreswear discussion of the relative merits of bit-numbering schemes. John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA _ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: significant bits
On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:56:52 +, john gilmore wrote: In fact any such decision was originally an arbitrary one and everyone's position is chiefly a matter of which tradition he or she was first exposed to. I am a left-to-right, zero-origin person, and it has been clear to me, for decades and beyond all argument, that the benighted people who take other positions should be lobotomized if not extirpated. Some of them, however, are good friends whom I should miss. What's left? What's right? I hold between my thumb and forefinger a memory chip, and with my microscopic X-ray vision I observe that the bits are numbered left-to-right. I rotate my hand 180 degrees. Now they're numbered right-to-left. Is there a Hebrew edition of the PoOp? Does the CPT Theorem apply? Zero-origin? It's always courteous to let others know where you're coming from. Et al. Etc. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: significant bits
On 25 May 2010 09:37:34 -0700, paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) wrote: What's left? What's right? I hold between my thumb and forefinger a memory chip, and with my microscopic X-ray vision I observe that the bits are numbered left-to-right. I rotate my hand 180 degrees. Now they're numbered right-to-left. When I first saw the symbol for Left Hand Brewery, and my first inclination was that it was a right hand. I thought it was facing me, but it was a hand print instead. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
Actually, your definition is circular. Yes, the digit that changes least is by definition the most significant, but there is no need for it to be on the left. There is no reason I could not design a logically consistent numbering system that put the most significant digits at the right. True, but most languages read numbers and words left to right. So, since English is one of them, and the one we happen to be communicating in, left to right is appropriate. PS: I could design one, as well. But, would anybody use it? - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:27:12 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. Not just x86 -- Solaris, Apple, DEC, HP, Honeywell, etc. have models that are little-endian. But you repeat yourself. Apple is x86 (or were you thinking of Apple ][?) Solaris is little-endian on x86 but big-endian on Sparc. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: significant bits
Paul Gilmartin, in his fullblown just-arrived-visitor-from-Mars mode, writes: | What's left? What's right? I hold between my thumb | and forefinger a memory . . . Now it would certainly be possible to represent ascending storage addresses from left to right on a page. Someone with a taste for the fanciful could even adopt a boustrophedon-based scheme. That banal concession made, the von Neumann machine was devised in a scientific culture that ordinarily arranges and reads text and diagrams from left to right. (von Neumann, a non-observant but Hebrew-reading Jew, was of course familiar with other conventions.) Zero-origin and one-origin subscripting and string-offset schemes make the cardinal number of a first element in a sequence of n elements either 0 in the sequence 0,1,2,3...,n-1 or 1 in the sequence 1,2,3,4,...,n. The IBM HLASM, for example, uses one-origin [set-symbol array] subscripts, zero-origin address offsets, and one-origin string [character set symbol] offsets; COBOL uses one-origin subscripts and one-origin string offsets; IBM PL/I supports all array bounds for which, in a hopefully unambiguous notation, -2_147_483_648 = L = H = +2_147_483_647; C supports only zero-origin subscripting and omits to support string offsets; etc., etc. Aristotle found the sophists' dichotomous rhetorical questions---What is good and what is evil?, What is left and what is right?, What is youth and what is age?, and the like---tedious; and I now understand why. John Gilmore _ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccountocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
But you repeat yourself. Apple is x86 (or were you thinking of Apple ][?) Having never used an Apple, I don't know. I thought they were still Motorola chips, which are also little endian. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:09:36 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: Having never used an Apple, I don't know. I thought they were still Motorola chips, which are also little endian. No. The 68000 and its successors are big endian. They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
--snip--- One of these days, for your sins, you will have to work in a (x86) little-endian world. Byte (pair) reversal will be visited upon you. -unsnip--- A pair of translates will solve that problem. BTDTGTSS. Our biggest problem was converting packed decimal to the appropriate binary value and teaching the programmers how to use the translation subroutine. :-) Rick -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote: The 68000 and its successors are big endian. They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. Didn't PPC go both ways? (I vaguely remember a talk by David Barnes a few years ago, where he mentioned the OS/2 PPC port making use of the mixed-endian-ness of PPC.) -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. david.andr...@duda.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:38:32 -0400, David Andrews wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote: The 68000 and its successors are big endian. They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. Didn't PPC go both ways? (I vaguely remember a talk by David Barnes a few years ago, where he mentioned the OS/2 PPC port making use of the mixed-endian-ness of PPC.) Yow! I knew it was bimodal, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC#Endian_modes In little-endian mode, the three lowest-order bits of the effective address are exclusive-ORed with a three bit value selected by the length of the operand. This is enough to appear fully little-endian to normal software. I suppose three lowest-order bits means the rightmost three bits in big-endian mode, and something somewhat different in little-endian. There's one bit that controls the endianness in supervisor state; another for problem state. --gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Significant Bits
Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:38:32 -0400, David Andrews wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Marchant wrote: The 68000 and its successors are big endian. They switched to PowerPC in 1994 and to i86 in 2006. Didn't PPC go both ways? (I vaguely remember a talk by David Barnes a few years ago, where he mentioned the OS/2 PPC port making use of the mixed-endian-ness of PPC.) Yow! I knew it was bimodal, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC#Endian_modes In little-endian mode, the three lowest-order bits of the effective address are exclusive-ORed with a three bit value selected by the length of the operand. This is enough to appear fully little-endian to normal software. I suppose three lowest-order bits means the rightmost three bits in big-endian mode, and something somewhat different in little-endian. Nope, it always means the three rightmost bits of an address. Bytes get reordered when data is moved between memory and a register. The hardware still runs big-endian. There's one bit that controls the endianness in supervisor state; another for problem state. In the embedded version of the Power architecture, byte ordering is an attribute of a page. Power is not the only chip architecture that supports some sort of bi-endianess. Itanium, which is mainly little-endian, supports big-endian memory references. --gil Regards, Henry -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
