On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:53:27 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
>Your belligerent attitude and insulting remarks are
>tiresome.
PKB
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
On 2022-06-20 04:25, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I see that you're citing sources that you haven't read;
Now you are being absurd.
I cited no sources. I mentioned three computers.
what a surprise.
[[Pilot ACE]] does
er List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
> on behalf of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
>
> From: "Seymour J Metz"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 7:50 AM
>
>
>&g
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
From: "Seymour J Metz"
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 7:50 AM
That's not enough to make it an array machine, any more than
Table lookup made the 650 an array machine.
You still don't know wh
M
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
From: "Seymour J Metz"
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 7:50 AM
> That's not enough to make it an array machine, any more than Table lookup
> made the 650 an array
> machine.
You stil
2 10:42 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
On 2022-06-17 23:31, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Whoosh! How is a statement about 2's complement machines relevant to a
statement about 1s' complement machines?
You mean that you don't know?
Your statements a
Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 10:42 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
On 2022-06-17 23:31, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Whoosh! How is a statement about 2's complement machines relevant to a
> statement about 1s' comp
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf
of Phil Smith III [li...@akphs.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 1:00 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
> I suspect that it goes b
Gilmartin [0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 2:03 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
On 6/17/22 11:00:30, Phil Smith III wrote:
>> I suspect that it goes back farther. There was no concept of ha
Charles added:
>Or maybe rather than halfword instructions, the architecture needs 53%word
>instructions.
You're being kind--clearly I need 53% of a brain!
@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
Charles Mills asked:
>In what base is 19 half of 36?
In the "It's Friday" base? OK, 262,144 and 131,072.
/me tries to slap forehead, misses because head is shaking too fast. It's
been a long week.
On 6/17/22 11:00:30, Phil Smith III wrote:
I suspect that it goes back farther. There was no concept of halfword at
the time;
it was all 36-bit words.
Oooh, I like the idea of halfwords in that context-19 bits! Just think, we'd
all know the numbers 524,288 and 262,144 like we know 32K and
Charles Mills asked:
>In what base is 19 half of 36?
In the "It's Friday" base? OK, 262,144 and 131,072.
/me tries to slap forehead, misses because head is shaking too fast. It's
been a long week.
In what base is 19 half of 36?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Phil Smith III
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 10:01 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear
> I suspect that it goes back farther. There was no concept of halfword at
the time;
> it was all 36-bit words.
Oooh, I like the idea of halfwords in that context-19 bits! Just think, we'd
all know the numbers 524,288 and 262,144 like we know 32K and 64K...
@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
on behalf of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 5:57 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
On 2022-06-17 19:02, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I'm not aware of any serial 1s' complement or 2's complement machines
-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf
of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 5:57 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
On 2022-06-17 19:02, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I'm not aware of any serial 1s' complement or 2's complem
On 6/17/22 02:54:31, Robin Vowels wrote:
On 2022-06-17 18:04, Seymour J Metz wrote:
FSVO serial. The early electronic machines that I'm aware of were
parallel.
FWIW, there were papers claiming that 1s' complement was simpler.
Not in a serial machine.
Was serial technology the motivation
f of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 2:40 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Gilmartin"
<0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
To:
Sent: Fri
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
Seymour, (Hope that's ok)
Many early machines were serial. The Manchester SSEM and it successors the
Manchester MK1 and Ferrante MK1* were all serial, as was the Ferranti
Pegasus.
The machine at Cambridge(UK
n behalf of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 2:40 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Gilmartin"
> <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ..
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> On Behalf Of Robin Vowels
> Sent: 17 June 2022 09:39
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
>
> On 2022-06-17 18:20, Seymour J Metz wrote:
&g
...
Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
> Sent: 17 June 2022 09:05
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
>
> FSVO serial. The early electronic machine
On 2022-06-17 18:20, Seymour J Metz wrote:
IBM was sign-magnitude in the 1950s, but CDC and UNIVAC inherited 1s'
complement from ERA. I'm not sure what the first 2's complement
machine was.
EDSAC was working in 1949.
It may not have been the first.
-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf
of Paul Gilmartin [0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 5:20 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
On Jun 16, 2022, at 10:43:36, Robin Vowels wrote:
>
> Computers ha
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf
of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 2:40 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
- Original Message -
From: "
@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf
of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 2:46 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
From: "Seymour J Metz"
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 1:07 AM
> Unsigned binary arithmetic goes
Michael, all,
in addition to all the replies already provided, I would like to point
you to a page I created:
https://bixoft.nl/english/opcodes.htm
Kind regards & happy programming!
Abe
===
Op 16/06/2022 om 16:36 schreef Schmitt, Michael:
> My company's COBOL coding standards are* to define
From: "Farley, Peter x23353" <0dc9d8785c29-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 12:55 AM
There were already logical instructions as early as the 360 machine series.
They were around even earlier: at least by 1951 such instructions existed.
However, early
From: "Tom Marchant" <00a69b48f3bb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 12:58 AM
ADD LOGICAL and SUBTRACT LOGICAL were part of the original System/360,
and are documented in the A22-6821-0 edition of the System/360 Principles of
Operation,
as well as in
From: "Seymour J Metz"
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 1:07 AM
Unsigned binary arithmetic goes back at least to the 704 in 1955.
I already said that it goes back to 1951, at least.
I suspect that it goes back farther. There was no concept of halfword at the
time;
it was all 36-bit words.
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear?
On Jun 16, 2022, at 10:43:36, Robin Vowels wrote:
Computers have had instruc
tify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your
mail system.
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Tom Marchant <00a69b48f3bb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: June 16, 2022 10:58
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When d
On Jun 16, 2022, at 10:43:36, Robin Vowels wrote:
Computers have had instructions for signed and unsigned binary
since at least 1951. When negative values are expressed using
twos complement notation, ordinary addition will give the same
result whether the operation is signed or unsigned.
It
Steve Smith (no known relation) wrote:
>Every coding standard should document exactly why the standard exists, i.e.
>what benefit it provides. That might help filter out, and allow for
>updating, of some long-gone person's personal preferences (which is where
>too many coding standards come
On 2022-06-17 00:36, Schmitt, Michael wrote:
My company's COBOL coding standards are* to define binary fields as
signed (e.g. PIC S9(4) BINARY). I'm wondering why that's the standard.
The original standards were developed at least 40-60 years ago. They
were revised in 1994 but the signed binary
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf
of Schmitt, Michael [michael.schm...@dxc.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:36 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: When did logical instructions appear?
My company's COBOL
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 14:36:12 + "Schmitt, Michael"
wrote:
:>My company's COBOL coding standards are* to define binary fields as signed
(e.g. PIC S9(4) BINARY). I'm wondering why that's the standard.
Because it takes extra instructions to get the absolute value.
--
Binyamin Dissen
.
So that's a good point: with TRUNC other than TRUNC(BIN), 9(4) or S9(4) has the
same maximum value.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dave Clark
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:54 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: When d
ADD LOGICAL and SUBTRACT LOGICAL were part of the original System/360, and are
documented in the A22-6821-0 edition of the System/360 Principles of Operation,
as well as in "Architecture of the IBM System/360", published in the IBM
Journal in April, 1964, which describes the reasoning for many
an the non-vector versions and newer compilers are
taking advantage of those instructions.
HTH
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Schmitt, Michael
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:36 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: When did logical instructi
[mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Schmitt, Michael
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 7:36 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: When did logical instructions appear?
My company's COBOL coding standards are* to define binary fields as signed
(e.g. PIC S9(4) BINARY). I'm wondering why
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
06/16/2022 10:36:12 AM:
> Or it could be that whatever version of COBOL was used then (OS/VS
> COBOL or earlier) was more efficient with signed binary, such as due
> to the choices it made in instruction selection.
My understanding, at least for
The logical instructions were in there from the get-go. I have no idea
what the implications were or are for COBOL.
Every coding standard should document exactly why the standard exists, i.e.
what benefit it provides. That might help filter out, and allow for
updating, of some long-gone
My company's COBOL coding standards are* to define binary fields as signed
(e.g. PIC S9(4) BINARY). I'm wondering why that's the standard.
The original standards were developed at least 40-60 years ago. They were
revised in 1994 but the signed binary guidance remained.
One explanation could be
45 matches
Mail list logo
