calculating floor(log2(x)) is fairly obvious,
so mabe the construction of the name was not accidental...
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: another z9 question
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/26/2005
at 07:23 AM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Are you not thinking, rather, of the Cxi instruction,
No. NXi would be more relevant, but what I was thinking of were SCA
and SCQ on the 3600, an entirely different line of computers.
--
Shmuel
STFL loads absolute location 200. See PoPs for mapping. Reply to me privately
and I will send you code that displays the bits there using the
descriptions from PoPs.
Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9/26/2005 12:21 PM wrote
Does the OS then make the result available to unprivileged programs
>>But STFL is a privileged instruction (STFLE is not). Who issues the
>>original STFL? the operating system during IPL?
>>
>> Yes. All z/OS and some OS/390 releases issue STFL at IPL time.
>>
>Does the OS then make the result available to unprivileged programs
>somewhere? (CVT?)
Yes. In PSA.
In a recent note, Edward E. Jaffe said:
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:52:20 -0700
>
> >But STFL is a privileged instruction (STFLE is not). Who issues the
> >original STFL? the operating system during IPL?
>
> Yes. All z/OS and some OS/390 releases issue STFL at IPL time.
>
Does the OS t
My first reaction to the STFLE instruction was Archie Bunker (All in the
Family, "Stifle yourself, Edith")
--
Bruce A. Black
Senior Software Developer for FDR
Innovation Data Processing 973-890-7300
personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sales info: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tech support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: ww
Chase, John wrote:
But STFL is a privileged instruction (STFLE is not). Who issues the
original STFL? the operating system during IPL?
Yes. All z/OS and some OS/390 releases issue STFL at IPL time.
--
.-.
| Edward E. Jaffe
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
>
> Craddock, Chris wrote:
> >>Will the new instructions, and modifications to existing instructions,
> >>introduced with the z9 series be retrofitted to the earlier z800,
> >>z890, z900 and / or z990
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Edward E. Jaffe
>
> Steve Comstock wrote:
>
> > Will the new instructions, and modifications to existing
> instructions,
> > introduced with the z9 series be retrofitted to the earlier z800,
> > z890, z900 and / or
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
>
> Will the new instructions, and modifications to existing
> instructions, introduced with the z9 series be retrofitted to
> the earlier z800, z890, z900 and / or z990 series?
I don't know about tha
From: "Paul Gilmartin"
>
> I don't know where the z9 PoO is,
Jim Mulder posted a (PDF) link a couple of days back to the latest PoPs. I
made an unsuccessful search for a .boo equivalent this afternoon.
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Edward E. Jaffe said:
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:02:44 -0700
In a recent note John Gilmore said:
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:18:15 +
provide an eponymous macro that does the same thing, albeit much more
slowly, on platforms that do
In a recent note, Edward E. Jaffe said:
> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:02:44 -0700
>
> >In a recent note John Gilmore said:
> >>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:18:15 +
> >>
> >>provide an eponymous macro that does the same thing, albeit much more
> >>slowly, on platforms that do not ma
Say what are you and Jaffe doing working on Sunday?
They're not working - they do this for the pure joy of it. The fact that
somebody pays them money to do it is purely coincidental ...
This is a PRIVAT
In a recent note, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" said:
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:18:47 -0300
>
> >Ah! The JFFO instruction which appeared on the decsystem KA-10 in
> >1968 (according to an unscientific Google search). I suppose it's OK
> >for IBM to use it now, since any patent has presum
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/25/2005
at 10:38 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Ah! The JFFO instruction which appeared on the decsystem KA-10 in
>1968 (according to an unscientific Google search). I suppose it's OK
>for IBM to use it now, since any patent has presumably expired.
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note John Gilmore said:
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:18:15 +
Meanwhile, I have found the new FLOGR instruction---It finds the leftmost
instance of a '1'b bit in a register doubleword---very convenient indeed for
scanning bit tables; and I have ele
In a recent note John Gilmore said:
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:18:15 +
>
> Meanwhile, I have found the new FLOGR instruction---It finds the leftmost
> instance of a '1'b bit in a register doubleword---very convenient indeed for
> scanning bit tables; and I have elected to use it when
john gilmore wrote:
Chris Craddock and Ed Jaffe have guessed that there will be no
retrofitting of the new z9 instructions, and they may well be right,
but it is important to remember that IBM will consult its own
convenience in deciding what to do. (It has retrofitted other such
instruction
Chris Craddock and Ed Jaffe have guessed that there will be no retrofitting
of the new z9 instructions, and they may well be right, but it is important
to remember that IBM will consult its own convenience in deciding what to
do. (It has retrofitted other such instruction sets and could do so a
No, he is. He is in far west Houston. He e-mailed me last night saying
that they had a few small trees down but nothing major.
--
M. Ray Mullins
Roseville, CA, USA
http://www.catherdersoftware.com/
http://www.mrmullins.big-bear-city.ca.us/
http://www.the-bus-stops-here.org/
> -Origi
: 972-296-6166
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Edward E. Jaffe
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 6:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another z9 question
>
> Steve Comstock wrote:
>
Steve Comstock wrote:
Craddock, Chris wrote:
Will the new instructions, and modifications to
existing instructions, introduced with the z9
series be retrofitted to the earlier z800, z890,
z900 and / or z990 series?
Almost certainly not.
CC
So at some point we'll have another ALS value,
Craddock, Chris wrote:
Will the new instructions, and modifications to
existing instructions, introduced with the z9
series be retrofitted to the earlier z800, z890,
z900 and / or z990 series?
Almost certainly not.
CC
So at some point we'll have another ALS value, eh?
Say what are you and
Steve Comstock wrote:
Will the new instructions, and modifications to
existing instructions, introduced with the z9
series be retrofitted to the earlier z800, z890,
z900 and / or z990 series?
No. But you can use STFLE to determine which facilities are present. The
presence of STFLE is indica
> Will the new instructions, and modifications to
> existing instructions, introduced with the z9
> series be retrofitted to the earlier z800, z890,
> z900 and / or z990 series?
Almost certainly not.
CC
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
Will the new instructions, and modifications to
existing instructions, introduced with the z9
series be retrofitted to the earlier z800, z890,
z900 and / or z990 series?
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
27 matches
Mail list logo
