Assembler List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf
of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 3:30 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Unsigned 64-bit numbers
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@lis
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2022 1:11 AM
On Apr 30, 2022, at 08:50:04, Bob Raicer wrote:
- begin snippet (from Paul Gilmartin)
I believe what it intends to say is that the two's complement of
the maximum negative
From: "Martin Ward"
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 7:27 PM
On Apr 29, 2022, at 12:08:22, Bob Raicer wrote:
The two's complement of the maximum negative number cannot be
represented in the same number of bits. ...
I think you mean "the absolute value (or the positive value)
of the maximum
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: Unsigned 64-bit numbers
On Apr 29, 2022, at 14:07:58, Robin Vowels wrote:
On 2022-04-30 05:10, Paul Gilmartin wrote
From: "Bob Raicer"
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 4:08 AM
There has been a lot of discussion about the representation of
signed binary integers and the common operations of signed addition
and subtraction on these items.
Since the introduction of the S/360 and continuing on through
On Apr 30, 2022, at 08:50:04, Bob Raicer wrote:
>
> - begin snippet (from Paul Gilmartin)
> I believe what it intends to say is that the two's complement of
> the maximum negative number is not its algebraic negation.
> - end snippet
>
> I agree with you, Paul, about the
- begin snippet (from Paul Gilmartin)
I believe what it intends to say is that the two's complement of
the maximum negative number is not its algebraic negation.
- end snippet
I agree with you, Paul, about the "algebraic negation" part of your
reply. However, as perceived by
- begin snippet (from Dave Clark)
That's all well and good, but not germain to the issues being
discussed in this thread.
- end snippet
No worries, Dave. My post was not intended to be a direct response
to you.
I'm also guessing you meant to use the word "germane" (but that's
On Apr 29, 2022, at 12:08:22, Bob Raicer wrote:
The two's complement of the maximum negative number cannot be
represented in the same number of bits. ...
I think you mean "the absolute value (or the positive value)
of the maximum negative number cannot be represented in
the same number of
On Apr 29, 2022, at 14:07:58, Robin Vowels wrote:
>
> On 2022-04-30 05:10, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>>...
>> That's exactly what the LCR instruction does.
>
> No it doesn't. RTM. The value in the register is unchanged
> in this case.
>
"RTM" doesn't tell me. The hardware could do any of:
o
On 2022-04-30 05:10, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Apr 29, 2022, at 12:08:22, Bob Raicer wrote:
For the sake of clarity I am going to paraphrase some of the text
found in the original S/360 Principles of Operation and the
z/Architecture Principles of Operation.
... The two's complement of
a
On Apr 29, 2022, at 12:08:22, Bob Raicer wrote:
>
> For the sake of clarity I am going to paraphrase some of the text
> found in the original S/360 Principles of Operation and the
> z/Architecture Principles of Operation.
>
> ... The two's complement of
> a number is obtained by forming the
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
04/29/2022 02:08:22 PM:
> There has been a lot of discussion about the representation of
> signed binary integers and the common operations of signed addition
> and subtraction on these items.
>
> Since the introduction of the S/360 and continuing on
There has been a lot of discussion about the representation of
signed binary integers and the common operations of signed addition
and subtraction on these items.
Since the introduction of the S/360 and continuing on through all of
its largely compatible successors, the representation of signed
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
04/28/2022 05:20:16 PM:
> How did you do it in COBOL?
I guess my statement could be a bit misleading. What I meant was
that, in COBOL, I had taken this 8-byte file field (a binary timestamp)
and turned it into a date/time for display purposes.
, 2022 4:12 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Unsigned 64-bit numbers
Your mind is in the right place, but your text is not. You can LGF or LLGF
a fullword into a full register. LG loads a doubleword, whether you point
it at one or not. i.e. an LG Rx,=X'87654321' results in x
Your mind is in the right place, but your text is not. You can LGF or LLGF
a fullword into a full register. LG loads a doubleword, whether you point
it at one or not. i.e. an LG Rx,=X'87654321' results in x'87654321garbage'.
There now exist LGH, LH, LLGH, LLH, LGB, LB, LLGC, and LLC for all
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Gary Weinhold
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 3:00 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Unsigned 64-bit numbers
When loading 8 bytes into an 64-bit register, you needn't worry about
When loading 8 bytes into an 64-bit register, you needn't worry about
logical vs. arithmetic. The sign only makes a difference if it's less
than a doubleword being loaded. An LG will load it..
On 2022-04-28 5:20 p.m., Schmitt, Michael wrote:
How did you do it in COBOL?
Gary Weinhold
Senior
No need for logical loading of an 8 byte number. There is no sign propagation,
so a simple LG will do. The, the arithmetic would use ALG, SLG, etc.
Keith Moe
BMC Software (retired in 33 days)
On Thursday, April 28, 2022, 02:20:56 PM PDT, Schmitt, Michael
wrote:
How did you do it
On Apr 28, 2022, at 15:20:16, Schmitt, Michael wrote:
> ...
>In case it makes a difference, this value is a timestamp (presumably
> from the store-clock instruction) but it is stored in an 8-byte file field.
> Now I need to take the file field and turn it into a date and a time
How did you do it in COBOL?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dave Clark
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 11:39 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Unsigned 64-bit numbers
I previously asked about 32-bit unsigned numbers and that
I realized I didn't need the fourth STCM so now the code is as
follows. It may be strange, but keep in mind that the output date content
of R14 and R15 is already in character format (MMDD YYCC) and the output
time content of R1 is already in packed format (0hhmmssC). I know
z114, just not the packed decimal
variety.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dave Clark
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:41 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Unsigned 64-bit numbers
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
02
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
02/01/2022 04:33:56 PM:
> Not that they don't work as is, but I wonder if those STCM's and
> UNPK could be replaced by Vector Packed Decimal instructions
> (assuming you have hardware that supports them)
Yes, GETIME returns the date in what I
Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dave Clark
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:12 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Unsigned 64-bit numbers
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
02/01/2022 12:29:45 PM:
> Perhaps the following helps?
>
> LM 14,15,64-bi
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
02/01/2022 12:29:45 PM:
> Perhaps the following helps?
>
> LM 14,15,64-bit-time-storage-area
> GETIME STANDARD,LOCAL,CLOCK=YES
Yes, that helped big time. Thank you very much. Your LM should
be for R0 and R1, though. I used the following
Perhaps the following helps?
LM 14,15,64-bit-time-storage-area
GETIME STANDARD,LOCAL,CLOCK=YES
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dave Clark
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:14 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Unsigned 64-bit
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
02/01/2022 11:50:07 AM:
> You may want to investigate the STCKCONV macro.
Not available on z/VSE. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Dave Clark
--
Winsupply Group Services
3110 Kettering Boulevard
Dayton, Ohio 45439 USA
(937) 294-5331
You may want to investigate the STCKCONV macro.
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dave Clark
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 11:39 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Unsigned 64-bit numbers
I previously asked about
On Feb 1, 2022, at 09:38:58, Dave Clark wrote:
>
>I previously asked about 32-bit unsigned numbers and that opened
> up some new instructions (new to me, anyway: LLGF, LLGH, etc) for loading
> unsigned numbers into registers. But now I have need to load a 64-bit
> unsigned value into
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
02/01/2022 11:42:56 AM:
> This is just a LG, just like L for 32-bits. It doesn't matter
> whether it's signed or unsigned. There's nowhere for a sign to be
extended.
Ah, I see. Got it. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Dave Clark
--
int.ext: 91078
This is just a LG, just like L for 32-bits. It doesn't matter whether it's
signed or unsigned. There's nowhere for a sign to be extended.
Robert Ngan
DXC Luxoft
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dave Clark
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 10:39
To:
33 matches
Mail list logo
