In 3493325860710629.wa.paulgboulderaim@bama.ua.edu, on
05/21/2012
at 07:44 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Well, then, a CMS-Rexx flavor, with a pointer and a length.
No, that's not what CMS uses. You don't want to know.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
In 6426001600524474.wa.paulgboulderaim@bama.ua.edu, on
05/21/2012
at 12:15 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Those generate parameter lists with a distinct CMS flavor.
Not even close; 8 character tokenization is mickey mouse. The PLIST
has a distinct REXX flavor. If you want
On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:43:14 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
on 05/21/2012 at 12:15 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:
Those generate parameter lists with a distinct CMS flavor.
Not even close; 8 character tokenization is mickey mouse. The PLIST
has a distinct REXX flavor. ...
Well, then, a
In 1337355369.63700.yahoomail...@web164504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com, on
05/18/2012
at 08:36 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com said:
I assumed I misunderstand how parameters are passed in Rexx to
Assembler
That depends on what environment you specify. However, in all cases
the save area chaining
On Sat, 19 May 2012 22:35:04 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
You probably should be using ADDRESS ATTACH or ADDRESS LINK for what
you are doing. See 2.5.9 in SA22-7790, z/OS TSO/E REXX Reference for
more details.
Those generate parameter lists with a distinct CMS flavor. I'll
recommend
All:
I am in the process of writing a Rexx program that will call an Assembler
program and pass parameters.
The program is simple..
-
Rexx:
/* TSTGFILE */
trace i
say 'Address is: 'address()
address TSO
Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 10:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Rexx - calling assembler question
All:
I am in the process of writing a Rexx
.
===
Wayne Driscoll
OMEGAMON DB2 L3 Support/Development
wdrisco(AT)us.ibm.com
===
From: Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu,
Date: 05/18/2012 10:37 AM
Subject:Rexx - calling assembler
On 18 May 2012 11:36, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
All:
I am in the process of writing a Rexx program that will call an Assembler
program and pass parameters.
The program is simple..
-
- calling assembler question
On 18 May 2012 11:36, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
All:
I am in the process of writing a Rexx program that will call an Assembler
program and pass parameters.
The program is simple
On 18 May 2012 12:25, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Tom:
Tom?
Let me explain, sorry, I should have been more clear..
The Rexx program or clist will call and Asembler module , the Assembler
module in this case will do calls to
the R_Radmin to perform extracts..output will go to
...@harminc.net
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Rexx - calling assembler question
On 18 May 2012 12:25, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Tom:
Tom?
Let me explain, sorry, I should have been more clear..
The Rexx program or clist will call
Chuck,
From the deep dark mists you can:
a. find out the number of parameters in the list
b: index across the list
Refer to the fine manual,
Help this helps.
Ken
On 1/04/2012 10:04 AM, Hardee, Chuck wrote:
Hello Listers,
I am in the process of doing some work in a macro written years ago.
My experience with macro assembler is some ten years ago,
but: finding the number of parameters in the list and indexing across the
list is IMHO only possible for positional parameters, but here we have
keyword parameters.
positional:
LABEL MACNAME A,B,C
keyword:
LABEL MACNAME P1=A,P2=B,P3=C
It would be helpful to know what you are trying to do. Try explaining
what that it without prejudging the question whether compound
variable names are needed to do it.
They are available at almost any level of complexity you need, as the
identifiers of created set symbols and set-symbol arrays,
Of
Ken Brick
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 2:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Macro Assembler Question
Chuck,
From the deep dark mists you can:
a. find out the number of parameters in the list
b: index across the list
Refer to the fine manual,
Help this helps.
Ken
On 1/04/2012 10:04
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 5:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Macro Assembler Question
My experience with macro assembler is some ten years ago,
but: finding
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
John Gilmore
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 9:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Macro Assembler Question
It would be helpful to know what you are trying to do. Try explaining
what that it without prejudging the question whether
Hello Listers,
I am in the process of doing some work in a macro written years ago.
The problem I am faced with is that the parameter list is something like the
following:
LABEL MACNAME P1=X,P2=Y,P3=Z,... Where the parameters can go out to p24.
And, unfortunately, there are 4 sets of
Here short example of how to use conditional macro assembler to handle an
arbitary number of macro parameters of the form X=Y where X is the variable
name without and Y is the character value. The technique is to omit the
variable names from the explicit keyword parameters for the macro and
@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Don Higgins
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 3:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Macro Assembler Question
Here short example of how to use conditional macro assembler to handle an
arbitary number of macro parameters of the form X=Y where X is the variable
name without
In
7939f2ef219f1e4c827f85c95001dab32163905...@uspho-mxvs02.amer.thermo.com,
on 03/31/2012
at 05:04 PM, Hardee, Chuck chuck.har...@thermofisher.com said:
So far, everything I have tried has met with resistance from the
assembler.
Did you try (PI) where I is from 1 to 24 for the regular case?
Hello Listers,
I am in the process of doing some work in a macro written years ago.
The problem I am faced with is that the parameter list is something like the
following:
LABEL MACNAME P1=X,P2=Y,P3=Z,... Where the parameters can go out to p24.
And, unfortunately, there are 4 sets of
If you look at SAMPLES that IBM provides, it refers to more than exits. It is
code that was considered to have worked (although it may have bugs) at the
time it was written. It is not 'supported' in that as mentioned below, you can
take it and change it to do what you want it to do. While not
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:14:07 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg hal9...@panix.com
wrote:
There is also the issue of using a BALR (or BASR) in lieu of
instructions that do not need Base Registers (ie: Not allowing the
macro to be used in a BASELESS program).
That's true. But BALR (as opposed to BAL)
Chris Mason wrote:
The key word here may be exit.
I will avoid talking about VTAM exit, because I never have any experience with
it...
I have no experience with RACF exits but I do - or used to - with VTAM
exits - and those of some related products. My understanding of an exit is
that it is
Chris Mason wrote:
Bill
The key word here may be exit.
(much snippage..)
Thus, given the assumptions above, it is no surprise to me that RACF have
not revisited the supplied assumed to be *sample* exit in order to ensure it
conforms to the best coding practices probably several years on
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
You know better than that.
Actually I don't. I was working on a project that had a ForTran
main program with some assembler subroutines, that needed
porting from a 7094 to another machine. The only change I recall
is having to test for -0, and for some reason
That is correct, Roy. I was not complaining about a sample exit. The exit
is mine and mine alone. I was complaining about supported macros to call
z/OS system services.
Bill
Roy Hewitt ibm-m...@frozen.eclipse.co.uk wrote in message
news:499a9905.6000...@frozen.eclipse.co.uk...
Chris Mason
At 20:58 -0600 on 02/17/2009, Walt Farrell wrote about Re: How
Official are Supplied Sample Exits? (was Assemble:
On the other hand, with your RACROUTE example that one BALR is going to
invoke a set of routines that will usually execute at least several thousand
other instructions, possibly
In 45d79eacefba9b428e3d400e924d36b9019d0...@iwdubcormsg007.sci.local, on
02/09/2009
at 09:15 PM, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com said:
Is there any package - Besides Ada Lovelace's running on Babbage machine
- that can run today on a +45 Year old machine :P
Yes.
--
Shmuel
In 4990bad6.50...@vmfacility.fr, on 02/10/2009
at 12:23 AM, Ivan Warren i...@vmfacility.fr said:
Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
programs written 45 years ago !
Would you settle for three? One from column BULL and two from column
Unisys.
In
In kmi4p4th01jpqif5rqgihtqfdbstvra...@4ax.com, on 02/10/2009
at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000, B5500, B6500, etc. series machines
operating system was written in
In d02.4e62cf50.36c44...@aol.com, on 02/11/2009
at 10:05 AM, (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) dasdbi...@aol.com
said:
I thought that the C in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines Bull.
No; B.U.L.L. was a minor player at the time.
CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but
In 94c476c03bff5e42ac3518fdac9643c4bdcdd49...@hqmail.rocketsoftware.com,
on 02/11/2009
at 10:36 AM, Bill Fairchild bi...@mainstar.com said:
But there was a connection between BUNCH and the French Bull. From that
wiki article: In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to the
French
In 499329a7.4050...@valley.net, on 02/11/2009
at 02:40 PM, Gerhard Postpischil gerh...@valley.net said:
It depends on your definition of mainframe and compatible. The CDC 1604
was an IBM 7094 look-alike,
You know better than that.
differing primarily in
using 1's complement arithmetic
In 1234388827.19101.65.ca...@chuck.duda.com, on 02/11/2009
at 04:47 PM, David Andrews d...@lists.duda.com said:
Was it KRONOS?
That came later. It would have to have been SIPROS or COS. CDC abandoned
SIPROS and COS eventually mutated into SCOPE and KRONOS (I'm not sure of
the spelling.)
--
BUNCH and the French Bull. From
that wiki article: In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to
the French computer company Groupe Bull.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#9 Assembler Question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#12 Assembler Question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn
On 16 Feb 2009 14:30:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In kmi4p4th01jpqif5rqgihtqfdbstvra...@4ax.com, on 02/10/2009
at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000,
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:52:02 -0500, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
note that in that time-frame, (at least) both Wang and Bull contracted
for rs/6000 to sell under their own label.
Aaah, that fits. At one time we had a small herd of Bulls, running
BOS/X, which was represented to me as an AIX
In ag4kp414kv5gvgdpufgsva0t61f0iq3...@4ax.com, on 02/16/2009
at 09:27 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
As I understand it, some operating system upgrades have required
recompilations.
Possibly, but that's a separate issue from recompilations due to changes
in the architecture.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:52:02 -0500, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
note that in that time-frame, (at least) both Wang and Bull contracted
for rs/6000 to sell under their own label.
Aaah, that fits. At one time we had a small herd of Bulls, running
BOS/X, which was represented to me as an AIX
On 16 Feb 2009 14:30:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In kmi4p4th01jpqif5rqgihtqfdbstvra...@4ax.com, on 02/10/2009
at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000,
with their own efforts.
Chris Mason
P.S. Assembler Question is a rather weak thread title[1] and, as may have
been predicted, it has allowed enormous drift. The main branch appears to
have become yet another memory lane stroll with packed picnic hampers
remembering the glorious summers
usenet5...@yahoo.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:24:21 AM
Subject: Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 15:50, Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote:
And, almost always, I code BAL/BALR and rarely BAS/BASR.
I started coding assembler on a 360/20 in 1972
In a message dated 2/10/2009 11:25:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca writes:
(BUNCH - Burroughs Univac Ncr Cdc Honeywell -- if I remember correctly).
I thought that the C in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines Bull. CDC made
mainframe-compatible disk drives,
CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not
central processors.
I thought the C was CDC. They most certainly made processors.
Bob Shannon
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 10:05 -0500, (IBM Mainframe Discussion List)
wrote:
CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not
central processors.
Oh m'gosh, yes. Look up Seymour Cray!
--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
david.andr...@duda.com
In a message dated 2/11/2009 9:06:17 A.M. Central Standard Time,
dasdbi...@aol.com writes:
I thought that the C in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines Bull. CDC made
mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not central
processors.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of (IBM Mainframe Discussion List)
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:05 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
In a message dated 2/10/2009 11:25:27 P.M. Central
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ed Finnell
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:24 AM
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6000_series_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6000_series)
I should have checked Wiki_knows_all first.
CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not
central processors.
I believe they stopped after 3350-compatible drives.
We were one of the last users in the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario Government)
to migrate to 3380's.
And, CDC didn't even participate in the RFP.
It
CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not
central processors.
Oh m'gosh, yes. Look up Seymour Cray!
I think the key was 'mainframe-compatible'.
But, back then, everybody was calling their equipment 'mainframes'.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
I thought that the C in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines Bull.
No, back then Honeywell was the H, until Bull bought them in the late 1970's.
I was still in University, then.
We had a Level 66, runing GCOS8.
The reps from Bull came in and changed all the labels on the machine, after the
But there was a connection between BUNCH and the French Bull. From that wiki
article: In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to the French
computer company Groupe Bull.
I seem to remember, it was a lot earlier than that (circa 1978).
Of course, I don't know which to trust the least --
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) writes:
I believe they stopped after 3350-compatible drives. We were one of
the last users in the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario
www.identityforge.com
From: Bill Fairchild bi...@mainstar.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:36:49 AM
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ed Finnell
Sent: Wednesday
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Yes, they made processors; just not IBM-Compatable.
It depends on your definition of mainframe and compatible. The
CDC 1604 was an IBM 7094 look-alike, differing primarily in
using 1's complement arithmetic rather than 2's complement
(patent issues?).
Gerhard
Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
They had a really crappy OS (if you could even call it that), but they
excelled at what they were designed to do.
Which one did you think was crappy? I ran on the CDC 6600 at
ESSA, and about halfway through the contract they switched
systems. (I remember it as
and 70's, as they were the fastest
numerical/mathematical machines of their era.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#9 Assembler Question
there are some old references about cray (and thornton) doing cdc 66000
... and then Cray left and formed Cray computer ... and Thornton left
and formed
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:05:27 EST, IBM Mainframe Discussion List
dasdbi...@aol.com wrote:
...
I thought that the C in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines Bull.
CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but
not central processors.
...
I don't know what the C was for, but CDC
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:50 -0500, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
I remember it as CYPROS
Was it KRONOS? Think PLATO used to run on that, too. (But we digress!)
--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
david.andr...@duda.com
--
series.
The University of Washington had a CDC 6400 in the late '60s
as I recall.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#9 Assembler Question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#12 Assembler Question
control data corporation ...
there is folklore in the late 60s, about the cdc 6600
: Assembler Question
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:05:27 EST, IBM Mainframe Discussion List
dasdbi...@aol.com wrote:
...
I thought that the C in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines Bull.
CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but
not central processors.
...
I don't know what the C
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:21:16 -0800, Scott Ford
scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
...Control Data Corporation was CDC
...
I don't know what the C was for, but CDC ...
Uh, I meant the C in BUNCH, not the Cs in CDC, but I can see
how that might not have been completely clear. I guess.
Pat
Before IBM makes a hardware change that impacts the performance of BAL/BALR,
perhaps they should scrape their macros clean of these instructions. I just
assembled an exit that uses the RACROUTE macro, and it still uses BALR (z/OS
1.9).
Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote in message
Err, they were really very different. The 709x had a 36-bit word, the 1604
a 48-bit word. The instructions sets were totally different. The 1604
packed two 24-bit instructions into each word. I learned computing on a CDC
3600, which was an upwardly compatible successor to the 1604.
Gerhard
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:40:23 -0500, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
It depends on your definition of mainframe and compatible. The
CDC 1604 was an IBM 7094 look-alike, differing primarily in
using 1's complement arithmetic rather than 2's complement
(patent issues?).
Just to clarify (you didn't say
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
Snipped
I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until
the use of e-mail for such
purpose.
Don Russell russell@gmail.com
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
02/09/2009 07:02 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: Assembler Question
On Mon, Feb
http://gsf-soft.com/
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 14:53, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Gilbert Saint-Flour
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24
snippage
And, almost always, I code BAL/BALR and rarely BAS
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 15:50, Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote:
And, almost always, I code BAL/BALR and rarely BAS/BASR.
I started coding assembler on a 360/20 in 1972, so call that an old habit.
The 360/20 was a 16-bit machine which had BAS/BASR, which I used a lot at the
time. The 360/20 did
Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
Snipped
I haven't coded a BALR for program
Edward Jaffe wrote:
... My programs use base registers only for constants, literals and
working storage--not code.
For more information on this topic, see
http://ew.share.org/proceedingmod/abstract.cfm?abstract_id=17758
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century
for such
purpose.
Gilbert Saint-Flour usenet5...@yahoo.com
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
02/10/2009 09:49 AM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24
LINKINST
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
Edward Jaffe wrote:
... My programs use base registers only
On 9 Feb 2009 15:33:19 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ivan Warren
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
Hopefully
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:19:53 -0800, Don Russell russell@gmail.com wrote:
BAL was pretty much obsolete when IPM came into existance. Unless of course
your code had to run on an old box. I have not come across an instance yet
when I needed BAL, and often use OPSYN to map BAL/R to BAS/R.
If I
BAL was pretty much obsolete when IPM came into existance. Unless of course
your code had to run on an old box. I have not come across an instance yet
when I needed BAL, and often use OPSYN to map BAL/R to BAS/R.
If I REALLY need BAL/R, I'll code a DC X'45' or DC X'05' and add a comment
saying I
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM, John McKown joa...@swbell.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:19:53 -0800, Don Russell russell@gmail.com
wrote:
BAL was pretty much obsolete when IPM came into existance. Unless of
course
your code had to run on an old box. I have not come across an
Hopefully..
BAL/BALR will still be around.. It's been around since S/360 and it's
here to stay.
That's the power of the architecture..
Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
programs written 45 years ago !
--Ivan
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ivan Warren
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
Hopefully..
BAL/BALR will still be around.. It's been around since S/360 and it's
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Ivan Warren i...@vmfacility.fr wrote:
Hopefully..
BAL/BALR will still be around.. It's been around since S/360 and it's
here to stay.
That's the power of the architecture..
Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
programs
Don Russell wrote:
BC mode PSWs are no longer supported, so if you are still running ACP 9 or
TPF 1.0 you have some old hardware indeed. ;-)
The fact is..
A z/Arch PSW is a BC mode PSW ;) (E bit is 0 !)
--Ivan
--
For
Don Russell wrote:
I agree. I'm not advocating that BAL/BALR be dropped from the instruction
set. I'm advocating that people stop using them in new/updated code.
IBM is scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for ways to improve
performance. One way would be to offload processing for
Edward Jaffe wrote:
I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few
years ago, I still used it on occasion to sense the current AMODE.
And I still use 'BALR' because most of my work still involves 24
AMODE/RMODE code ;)
--Ivan
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Ivan Warren i...@vmfacility.fr wrote:
Don Russell wrote:
BC mode PSWs are no longer supported, so if you are still running ACP 9 or
TPF 1.0 you have some old hardware indeed. ;-)
The fact is..
A z/Arch PSW is a BC mode PSW ;) (E bit is 0 !)
Well, good
Don Russell wrote:
Well, good luck with your SIO instructions there. ;-)
I said BC mode.. Never said Pre-XA ! (all I said is that a z/Arch PSW is
no longer an EC mode PSW since the E bit in the PSW is 0 in z/Arch (lest
you want an early Specification Exception to occur))
(However, some
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Ivan Warren i...@vmfacility.fr wrote:
And I still use 'BALR' because most of my work still involves 24
AMODE/RMODE code ;)
BAS/BASR work fine in 24 bit mode too. Stop living in the past. ;-) (Just
teasing)
Do you use the linkage information in the high byte?
Don Russell wrote:
BAS/BASR work fine in 24 bit mode too. Stop living in the past. ;-) (Just
teasing)
Do you use the linkage information in the high byte?
I *HAVE* to live in the past.. S/370 to us is the only option. The
powers that be leave us no choice !
--Ivan
(If you're wondering
Ivan Warren wrote:
Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
programs written 45 years ago !
Babbage's Analytical Engine? G
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff
Ivan Warren wrote:
Edward Jaffe wrote:
I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few
years ago, I still used it on occasion to sense the current AMODE.
And I still use 'BALR' because most of my work still involves 24
AMODE/RMODE code ;)
Why not BASR? You mean you
Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
Babbage's Analytical Engine? G
ok.. lemme rephrase this !
Is there any package - Besides Ada Lovelace's running on Babbage machine
- that can run today on a +45 Year old machine :P
--Ivan
--
For
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:24:12 -0800, Don Russell wrote:
That sounds like the subroutine was trying to be bi-modal, and probably used
BSM to return. If it were called via BAL, the addressing mode bit in the
return register is not reliable for determining address mode when the caller
is in 24 bit
Ivan Warren wrote:
Don Russell wrote:
BAS/BASR work fine in 24 bit mode too. Stop living in the past. ;-) (Just
teasing)
Do you use the linkage information in the high byte?
I *HAVE* to live in the past.. S/370 to us is the only option. The
powers that be leave us no choice !
--Ivan
(If
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ivan Warren
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
Babbage's Analytical Engine? G
ok.. lemme rephrase
Hello, all I have a question. I was just looking through the principle
of ops guide on an instruction I had a question on and noticed a BAS
instruction. I started reading about it and noticed that it said we
should use the BAS, BASR type of instructions instead of the BAL and
BALR types. I won't
In a recent note, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) said:
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:36:40 -0500
I've written programs where the lower bound was negative. Yes, the
code was clearer that way than it would have otherwise been.
Heck, I've written programs in Rexx and awk (others might use perl)
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/08/2006
at 10:30 AM, Howard Brazee [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sure for non-programmers indices start off with 1 - most of the time.
But sometimes they start off with 1001.
I've written programs where the lower bound was negative. Yes, the
code was clearer that way
1 - 100 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
