Re: Backward compat--how far?
Actually, BAL/BALR came first. BAS/BASR, in different forms, were on the later 360/20 and 360/67. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Randy Hudson Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:53 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far? In article <52550040-57eb-4a48-9627-e5c6444fe...@googlegroups.com>, wrote: > I've got a copy of "IBM Operating System/360 Assembler Language" copyright > December 1964. Pretty sure all the opcodes listed in Appendix B (Machine > Instruction Mnemonic Codes) are still supported by the hardware (I haven't > checked 'em all). There are some 360/20-only codes that might not work. I recall a BAS and BASR, op codes 0D and 4D, that were the predecessors of the BAL and BALR instruction. Since the registers on the 360/20 were only 16 bits, they only saved the low-order 16 bits of the PSW for a return address (BAL/BALR store 32 bits, the bottom 24 of which are the return address). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
360/67. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Steve Smith Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 11:21 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far? There are also SSK, ISK, LMC, & STMC; all privileged. x'0d' (BASR) and x'4d' (BAS) are modern (XA-era) successors to BALR/BAL. If they had a previous incarnation, I hadn't heard about it, but I never got close to a 360/20. sas On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:27 AM Tom Marchant < 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:53:58 -0500, Randy Hudson wrote: > > >In article <52550040-57eb-4a48-9627-e5c6444fe...@googlegroups.com>, > > wrote: > > > >> I've got a copy of "IBM Operating System/360 Assembler Language" > copyright > >> December 1964. Pretty sure all the opcodes listed in Appendix B > (Machine > >> Instruction Mnemonic Codes) are still supported by the hardware (I > haven't > >> checked 'em all). > > Off the top of my head, the I/O instructions, SIO, HIO, CIO, TIO, and TCH, > were removed with the introduction of 370/Extended Architecture around > 1982. Read Direct and Write Direct were also removed at about the same > time. There may be a few other instructions that have been removed, but > IIRC they are all privileged instructions. > > -- > Tom Marchant > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
There are also SSK, ISK, LMC, & STMC; all privileged. x'0d' (BASR) and x'4d' (BAS) are modern (XA-era) successors to BALR/BAL. If they had a previous incarnation, I hadn't heard about it, but I never got close to a 360/20. sas On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:27 AM Tom Marchant < 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:53:58 -0500, Randy Hudson wrote: > > >In article <52550040-57eb-4a48-9627-e5c6444fe...@googlegroups.com>, > > wrote: > > > >> I've got a copy of "IBM Operating System/360 Assembler Language" > copyright > >> December 1964. Pretty sure all the opcodes listed in Appendix B > (Machine > >> Instruction Mnemonic Codes) are still supported by the hardware (I > haven't > >> checked 'em all). > > Off the top of my head, the I/O instructions, SIO, HIO, CIO, TIO, and TCH, > were removed with the introduction of 370/Extended Architecture around > 1982. Read Direct and Write Direct were also removed at about the same > time. There may be a few other instructions that have been removed, but > IIRC they are all privileged instructions. > > -- > Tom Marchant > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:53:58 -0500, Randy Hudson wrote: >In article <52550040-57eb-4a48-9627-e5c6444fe...@googlegroups.com>, > wrote: > >> I've got a copy of "IBM Operating System/360 Assembler Language" copyright >> December 1964. Pretty sure all the opcodes listed in Appendix B (Machine >> Instruction Mnemonic Codes) are still supported by the hardware (I haven't >> checked 'em all). Off the top of my head, the I/O instructions, SIO, HIO, CIO, TIO, and TCH, were removed with the introduction of 370/Extended Architecture around 1982. Read Direct and Write Direct were also removed at about the same time. There may be a few other instructions that have been removed, but IIRC they are all privileged instructions. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
In article <52550040-57eb-4a48-9627-e5c6444fe...@googlegroups.com>, wrote: > I've got a copy of "IBM Operating System/360 Assembler Language" copyright > December 1964. Pretty sure all the opcodes listed in Appendix B (Machine > Instruction Mnemonic Codes) are still supported by the hardware (I haven't > checked 'em all). There are some 360/20-only codes that might not work. I recall a BAS and BASR, op codes 0D and 4D, that were the predecessors of the BAL and BALR instruction. Since the registers on the 360/20 were only 16 bits, they only saved the low-order 16 bits of the PSW for a return address (BAL/BALR store 32 bits, the bottom 24 of which are the return address). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
Skip.
I helped a Brokerage company convert some channel Extension hardware
devices to some more supported for Y2K.
It was interesting for sure. But TSO utilities a house of a different color.
Scott
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:39 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> It was a typo. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. If you had used
> FORMAT extensively you'd make the same typo.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf
> of David Spiegel
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 5:19 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far?
>
> Hi R' Shmuel AMV"SH,
> "... MERDE ... "
> Was that a Freudian Slip or a typo? {;}-?
>
> Regards,
> David
>
> On 2019-12-18 17:11, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> > I thought that everyone using TSO Data set Utilities: COPY, FORMAT, LIST
> and MERDE, 5734-UT1, had converted to ASI TSO Superset (
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fasisoft.com%2Fproducts%2Ftso-superset-utilitiesdata=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349329554sdata=5pNxIVvl4Eoos4Ixr7Kvi1uHceisuWl1qlgin4Zh7tQ%3Dreserved=0)
> long since.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> >
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349339565sdata=w47PKZXX7NfOoELvMJaEDLUCuin7Mv9NvyhDUISHgBw%3Dreserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
> behalf of Jesse 1 Robinson
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 12:58 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far?
> >
> > We experienced a lot of brouhaha during Y2K preparation over the ancient
> and venerable TSO Utilities: COPY/MERGE/... Their link edit dates were in
> the early 1970s. We had to fight up the chain of command to avoid deleting
> them. Of course they work as well--or poorly--today as they did in 1999.
> Sometimes reason can prevail.
> >
> > As for ISAM, IBM provided a transparent conversion to VSAM in the 1980s.
> No application code changes, but a huuuge improvement in performance. No
> charge.
> >
> > .
> > .
> > J.O.Skip Robinson
> > Southern California Edison Company
> > Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> > 323-715-0595 Mobile
> > 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
> > robin...@sce.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On
> Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:47 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: (External):Re: Backward compat--how far?
> >
> > Lots of OS/360 code can still be run unchanged. Some will take an ABEND
> S0C4 due to accessing unassigned storage; that problem shouldn't exist for
> code written for an OS/VS2 or MVS/SP system.
> >
> > ISAM may be an issue for some code, as may BTAM and QTAM..
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> >
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349339565sdata=w47PKZXX7NfOoELvMJaEDLUCuin7Mv9NvyhDUISHgBw%3Dreserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
> behalf of Rupert Reynolds
> > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:47 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Backward compat--how far?
> >
> > Another question, purely out of interest:
> > Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged?
> > I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code
> segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-)
> >
> > Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old
> stuff, such as the typical local utilities we all saw:
> >
> > MYPROG CSECT
> > MYPROG RMODE ANY
> > MYPROG AMODE 24
> > STM 14,12,12(13)
> > USING ...
> >
> > If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the
> flexibility of the original design!
> >
> > Rupert
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / sig
Re: Backward compat--how far?
It was a typo. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. If you had used FORMAT
extensively you'd make the same typo.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
David Spiegel
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 5:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far?
Hi R' Shmuel AMV"SH,
"... MERDE ... "
Was that a Freudian Slip or a typo? {;}-?
Regards,
David
On 2019-12-18 17:11, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I thought that everyone using TSO Data set Utilities: COPY, FORMAT, LIST and
> MERDE, 5734-UT1, had converted to ASI TSO Superset
> (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fasisoft.com%2Fproducts%2Ftso-superset-utilitiesdata=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349329554sdata=5pNxIVvl4Eoos4Ixr7Kvi1uHceisuWl1qlgin4Zh7tQ%3Dreserved=0)
> long since.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349339565sdata=w47PKZXX7NfOoELvMJaEDLUCuin7Mv9NvyhDUISHgBw%3Dreserved=0
>
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
> Jesse 1 Robinson
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 12:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far?
>
> We experienced a lot of brouhaha during Y2K preparation over the ancient and
> venerable TSO Utilities: COPY/MERGE/... Their link edit dates were in the
> early 1970s. We had to fight up the chain of command to avoid deleting them.
> Of course they work as well--or poorly--today as they did in 1999. Sometimes
> reason can prevail.
>
> As for ISAM, IBM provided a transparent conversion to VSAM in the 1980s. No
> application code changes, but a huuuge improvement in performance. No charge.
>
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
> robin...@sce.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
> Seymour J Metz
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:47 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):Re: Backward compat--how far?
>
> Lots of OS/360 code can still be run unchanged. Some will take an ABEND S0C4
> due to accessing unassigned storage; that problem shouldn't exist for code
> written for an OS/VS2 or MVS/SP system.
>
> ISAM may be an issue for some code, as may BTAM and QTAM..
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349339565sdata=w47PKZXX7NfOoELvMJaEDLUCuin7Mv9NvyhDUISHgBw%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> ________________
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
> Rupert Reynolds
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:47 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Backward compat--how far?
>
> Another question, purely out of interest:
> Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged?
> I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code segment
> size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-)
>
> Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff,
> such as the typical local utilities we all saw:
>
> MYPROG CSECT
> MYPROG RMODE ANY
> MYPROG AMODE 24
> STM 14,12,12(13)
> USING ...
>
> If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility
> of the original design!
>
> Rupert
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
Hi R' Shmuel AMV"SH,
"... MERDE ... "
Was that a Freudian Slip or a typo? {;}-?
Regards,
David
On 2019-12-18 17:11, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I thought that everyone using TSO Data set Utilities: COPY, FORMAT, LIST and
> MERDE, 5734-UT1, had converted to ASI TSO Superset
> (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fasisoft.com%2Fproducts%2Ftso-superset-utilitiesdata=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349329554sdata=5pNxIVvl4Eoos4Ixr7Kvi1uHceisuWl1qlgin4Zh7tQ%3Dreserved=0)
> long since.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349339565sdata=w47PKZXX7NfOoELvMJaEDLUCuin7Mv9NvyhDUISHgBw%3Dreserved=0
>
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
> Jesse 1 Robinson
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 12:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far?
>
> We experienced a lot of brouhaha during Y2K preparation over the ancient and
> venerable TSO Utilities: COPY/MERGE/... Their link edit dates were in the
> early 1970s. We had to fight up the chain of command to avoid deleting them.
> Of course they work as well--or poorly--today as they did in 1999. Sometimes
> reason can prevail.
>
> As for ISAM, IBM provided a transparent conversion to VSAM in the 1980s. No
> application code changes, but a huuuge improvement in performance. No charge.
>
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
> robin...@sce.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
> Seymour J Metz
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:47 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):Re: Backward compat--how far?
>
> Lots of OS/360 code can still be run unchanged. Some will take an ABEND S0C4
> due to accessing unassigned storage; that problem shouldn't exist for code
> written for an OS/VS2 or MVS/SP system.
>
> ISAM may be an issue for some code, as may BTAM and QTAM..
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc971c13c943f4ead24de08d784075295%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637123039349339565sdata=w47PKZXX7NfOoELvMJaEDLUCuin7Mv9NvyhDUISHgBw%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> ________________
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
> Rupert Reynolds
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:47 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Backward compat--how far?
>
> Another question, purely out of interest:
> Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged?
> I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code segment
> size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-)
>
> Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff,
> such as the typical local utilities we all saw:
>
> MYPROG CSECT
> MYPROG RMODE ANY
> MYPROG AMODE 24
> STM 14,12,12(13)
> USING ...
>
> If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility
> of the original design!
>
> Rupert
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
I thought that everyone using TSO Data set Utilities: COPY, FORMAT, LIST and MERDE, 5734-UT1, had converted to ASI TSO Superset (http://asisoft.com/products/tso-superset-utilities) long since. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Jesse 1 Robinson Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 12:58 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far? We experienced a lot of brouhaha during Y2K preparation over the ancient and venerable TSO Utilities: COPY/MERGE/... Their link edit dates were in the early 1970s. We had to fight up the chain of command to avoid deleting them. Of course they work as well--or poorly--today as they did in 1999. Sometimes reason can prevail. As for ISAM, IBM provided a transparent conversion to VSAM in the 1980s. No application code changes, but a huuuge improvement in performance. No charge. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:47 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Backward compat--how far? Lots of OS/360 code can still be run unchanged. Some will take an ABEND S0C4 due to accessing unassigned storage; that problem shouldn't exist for code written for an OS/VS2 or MVS/SP system. ISAM may be an issue for some code, as may BTAM and QTAM.. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Rupert Reynolds Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Backward compat--how far? Another question, purely out of interest: Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, such as the typical local utilities we all saw: MYPROG CSECT MYPROG RMODE ANY MYPROG AMODE 24 STM 14,12,12(13) USING ... If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility of the original design! Rupert -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
We experienced a lot of brouhaha during Y2K preparation over the ancient and venerable TSO Utilities: COPY/MERGE/... Their link edit dates were in the early 1970s. We had to fight up the chain of command to avoid deleting them. Of course they work as well--or poorly--today as they did in 1999. Sometimes reason can prevail. As for ISAM, IBM provided a transparent conversion to VSAM in the 1980s. No application code changes, but a huuuge improvement in performance. No charge. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:47 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Backward compat--how far? Lots of OS/360 code can still be run unchanged. Some will take an ABEND S0C4 due to accessing unassigned storage; that problem shouldn't exist for code written for an OS/VS2 or MVS/SP system. ISAM may be an issue for some code, as may BTAM and QTAM.. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Rupert Reynolds Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Backward compat--how far? Another question, purely out of interest: Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, such as the typical local utilities we all saw: MYPROG CSECT MYPROG RMODE ANY MYPROG AMODE 24 STM 14,12,12(13) USING ... If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility of the original design! Rupert -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
Lots of OS/360 code can still be run unchanged. Some will take an ABEND S0C4 due to accessing unassigned storage; that problem shouldn't exist for code written for an OS/VS2 or MVS/SP system. ISAM may be an issue for some code, as may BTAM and QTAM.. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Rupert Reynolds Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Backward compat--how far? Another question, purely out of interest: Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, such as the typical local utilities we all saw: MYPROG CSECT MYPROG RMODE ANY MYPROG AMODE 24 STM 14,12,12(13) USING ... If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility of the original design! Rupert -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
Periodic mandatory recompiles would have saved us a lot of grief. Take companies that lost their source code - please! -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Charles Mills Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:56 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far? I would guess most basic applications and simple system utilities from OS/360 will run unchanged, even in load module form. If you have an IEBCOPY dump on a medium you can read I would guess you could restore it and run it under z/OS V2R4. That's pretty new source code you show. I don't think of RMODE/AMODE as old stuff, but I guess it is all relative. Certainly the code you post below (if completed) would assemble, link and run without error. It *is* quite an achievement. I am personally perhaps counter-usual-wisdom in that I wonder if the 100% slavish compatibility was an over-learning of the lessons of Future System on IBM's part. I wonder if the guaranteed compatibility has given customers permission to ignore the platform in their management thought process. "It will always work whether we invest in it or not." https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-ry1Bem8_GwQbwjDvmxdKfzaws5AK2bfg-MQGwsTBWMdb_GCI6wgaa_gt5rVwB4oXRp-2G-YT8XTwe1HGBJEAdta9HfgrvN0Ov7Jf0drFlXESQi41lUx-_MBAb2K8QRdoAoM042lxkn_qTzuLLChYGsdhs32fhnGOSMjiz1hKql4-HAsV6d_mmQhY7Q7zoe6FFFB3NSntf8v6W7XnwLz3G00diC2VwVm-oN9XEXhXhx3ICB4If5rlEJP8bASvBcHyyopNgKf-_7SAQ8UoijzmCndhNObLCIy5-fQMwLQCqioa9puVto2Ao8LHJIvJbmR0b2F8S5OqSVB2ulIG2o7cLiHiB3vkWYOowVT3vrKsjgBAJOeEogzyK0FemJCz9PQ_Vu7a5rzogcYOQqjqMLUuND8qidaRwsxg8IMStI850u4Q6c3VfwIMRcgKnvROf5x/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIBM_Future_Systems_project if you don't know what I am referring to, especially the last paragraph under Project End. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Rupert Reynolds Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 12:48 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Backward compat--how far? Another question, purely out of interest: Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, such as the typical local utilities we all saw: MYPROG CSECT MYPROG RMODE ANY MYPROG AMODE 24 STM 14,12,12(13) USING ... If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility of the original design! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN pa -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
The original problem was my brain fade--I tryped RMODE ANY with AMODE 24, which is unlikely to end well :-) On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 22:16 Charles Mills, wrote: > AMODE 31, RMODE 24 is not illegal. It is what I would use if I were to > write a non-RENT program that did QSAM or BPAM I/O. > > If you think about it, it is a subset of the conditions allowed by AMODE > 31, RMODE ANY. > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Rupert Reynolds > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 1:35 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far? > > 'Whinge' similar to 'complain'. Spellings vary :-) > > You're right about the AMODE/RMODE, though. I had them reversed. AMODE 31, > RMODE ANY, although it was AMODE 31, RMODE 24 in one circumstance I'd have > to think about. > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
You can use AMODE 31, RMODE ANY for everything QSAM, BPAM...doesnt matter. Sometimes a few more hoops have to be jumped thru, but it works just fine. Thanks, Tom Savor -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 5:16 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far? ⚠ EXTERNAL MESSAGE – Think Before You Click AMODE 31, RMODE 24 is not illegal. It is what I would use if I were to write a non-RENT program that did QSAM or BPAM I/O. If you think about it, it is a subset of the conditions allowed by AMODE 31, RMODE ANY. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Rupert Reynolds Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 1:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far? 'Whinge' similar to 'complain'. Spellings vary :-) You're right about the AMODE/RMODE, though. I had them reversed. AMODE 31, RMODE ANY, although it was AMODE 31, RMODE 24 in one circumstance I'd have to think about. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
AMODE 31, RMODE 24 is not illegal. It is what I would use if I were to write a non-RENT program that did QSAM or BPAM I/O. If you think about it, it is a subset of the conditions allowed by AMODE 31, RMODE ANY. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Rupert Reynolds Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 1:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Backward compat--how far? 'Whinge' similar to 'complain'. Spellings vary :-) You're right about the AMODE/RMODE, though. I had them reversed. AMODE 31, RMODE ANY, although it was AMODE 31, RMODE 24 in one circumstance I'd have to think about. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
Well. For some reason, I thought "whinge" was merely an alternative spelling of "whine". Turns out this is not so. They are neither homonyms nor exact synonyms. YLSE... btw, I googled "winge", and it seems you could have gotten away with by claiming some Australian heritage :-). sas On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:54 PM Tony Harminc wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 16:42, Tony Harminc wrote: > > > > > Winge ¬= whine. > > > > Now I've done it too. Muphry's Law again. > > Whinge ¬= whine. Nor are they pronounced at all the same. > > Tony H. > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 16:42, Tony Harminc wrote: > > Winge ¬= whine. > Now I've done it too. Muphry's Law again. Whinge ¬= whine. Nor are they pronounced at all the same. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 16:01, Steve Smith wrote: > > I don't get British spelling, shouldn't that be "whigning"? (if y'all > insist on having a silent 'g' in there). That's rhetorical; the spelling > is "whinging" regardless. > Winge ¬= whine. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
'Whinge' similar to 'complain'. Spellings vary :-) You're right about the AMODE/RMODE, though. I had them reversed. AMODE 31, RMODE ANY, although it was AMODE 31, RMODE 24 in one circumstance I'd have to think about. Rupert On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 21:00 Steve Smith, wrote: > Indeed it can. And for the majority of programs that don't color too far > outside the lines, they don't need to be reassembled anyway. > > btw, that AMODE/RMODE combo is illegal. I think the Binder corrects it > without much complaint. > > I don't get British spelling, shouldn't that be "whigning"? (if y'all > insist on having a silent 'g' in there). That's rhetorical; the spelling > is "whinging" regardless. > > sas > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM Rupert Reynolds > wrote: > > > Another question, purely out of interest: > > Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? > > I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code > > segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT > :-) > > > > Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old > stuff, > > such as the typical local utilities we all saw: > > > > MYPROG CSECT > > MYPROG RMODE ANY > > MYPROG AMODE 24 > > STM 14,12,12(13) > > USING ... > > > > If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the > flexibility > > of the original design! > > > > Rupert > > > > -- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > -- > sas > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
Thanks for that. I'm a new boy, compared with some here. I started on a mixture of VM/370 and MVS/XA. All the new code was AMODE 31 and RENT where it was sensible. We used the new instructions where they helped and the recommended interfaces where it was reasonable. The old code was 'fun' at times. Like the drive geometry hard-coded into an ancient direct access routine that was almost an access method in itself. And some of the JES exits were old-school works of art :-) Rupert On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 20:56 Charles Mills, wrote: > I would guess most basic applications and simple system utilities from > OS/360 will run unchanged, even in load module form. If you have an IEBCOPY > dump on a medium you can read I would guess you could restore it and run it > under z/OS V2R4. > > That's pretty new source code you show. I don't think of RMODE/AMODE > as old stuff, but I guess it is all relative. Certainly the code you post > below (if completed) would assemble, link and run without error. > > It *is* quite an achievement. I am personally perhaps counter-usual-wisdom > in that I wonder if the 100% slavish compatibility was an over-learning of > the lessons of Future System on IBM's part. I wonder if the guaranteed > compatibility has given customers permission to ignore the platform in > their management thought process. "It will always work whether we invest in > it or not." > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Future_Systems_project if you don't > know what I am referring to, especially the last paragraph under Project > End. > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Rupert Reynolds > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 12:48 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Backward compat--how far? > > Another question, purely out of interest: > Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? > I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code > segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) > > Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, > such as the typical local utilities we all saw: > > MYPROG CSECT > MYPROG RMODE ANY > MYPROG AMODE 24 > STM 14,12,12(13) > USING ... > > If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility > of the original design! > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
I am working on a client system that has MVS/SP era Utilities developed by a third party using SVC99 to do Dynamic allocation for COBOL programs. It still works. So, yes old MVS/SP era code can as long as it doesn’t use discontinued instructions (i.e., SIO) or depend on obsolete text units (which are ignored as long as they are syntactically correct) and similar. Sent from my iPhone — small keyboarf, fat fungrs, stupd spell manglr. Expct mistaks > On Dec 16, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Rupert Reynolds wrote: > > Another question, purely out of interest: > Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? > I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code > segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) > > Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, > such as the typical local utilities we all saw: > > MYPROG CSECT > MYPROG RMODE ANY > MYPROG AMODE 24 >STM 14,12,12(13) >USING ... > > If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility > of the original design! > > Rupert > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
Indeed it can. And for the majority of programs that don't color too far outside the lines, they don't need to be reassembled anyway. btw, that AMODE/RMODE combo is illegal. I think the Binder corrects it without much complaint. I don't get British spelling, shouldn't that be "whigning"? (if y'all insist on having a silent 'g' in there). That's rhetorical; the spelling is "whinging" regardless. sas On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM Rupert Reynolds wrote: > Another question, purely out of interest: > Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? > I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code > segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) > > Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, > such as the typical local utilities we all saw: > > MYPROG CSECT > MYPROG RMODE ANY > MYPROG AMODE 24 > STM 14,12,12(13) > USING ... > > If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility > of the original design! > > Rupert > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backward compat--how far?
I would guess most basic applications and simple system utilities from OS/360 will run unchanged, even in load module form. If you have an IEBCOPY dump on a medium you can read I would guess you could restore it and run it under z/OS V2R4. That's pretty new source code you show. I don't think of RMODE/AMODE as old stuff, but I guess it is all relative. Certainly the code you post below (if completed) would assemble, link and run without error. It *is* quite an achievement. I am personally perhaps counter-usual-wisdom in that I wonder if the 100% slavish compatibility was an over-learning of the lessons of Future System on IBM's part. I wonder if the guaranteed compatibility has given customers permission to ignore the platform in their management thought process. "It will always work whether we invest in it or not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Future_Systems_project if you don't know what I am referring to, especially the last paragraph under Project End. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Rupert Reynolds Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 12:48 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Backward compat--how far? Another question, purely out of interest: Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, such as the typical local utilities we all saw: MYPROG CSECT MYPROG RMODE ANY MYPROG AMODE 24 STM 14,12,12(13) USING ... If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility of the original design! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Backward compat--how far?
Another question, purely out of interest: Can the old MVS/SP code still run unchanged? I reminisced with a friend about the day he whinged about a 64k code segment size on Intel micros and I out-whinged him with a 4k code CSECT :-) Can a modern z/OS installation still assemble, link and run the old stuff, such as the typical local utilities we all saw: MYPROG CSECT MYPROG RMODE ANY MYPROG AMODE 24 STM 14,12,12(13) USING ... If so, that's quite an achievement, both in the changes and the flexibility of the original design! Rupert -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
