In
CAHm_n2=bqdhewx5mvmbt3weqq0dfwewwf_w7m4j46oatpyf...@mail.gmail.com,
on 04/13/2012
at 09:23 AM, Kirk Wolf k...@dovetail.com said:
With the explosion of new instructions, at what point does writing
hand-written assembler code become less and less practical?
I would have thought that it was
In eca05fed-2f46-42eb-be35-50536de31...@yahoo.com, on 04/12/2012
at 12:34 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com said:
What about folks not running Z9 for z/os 2.1 ?
Preumably like any levelset; stay backlevel or upgrade.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO
).
Lloyd
- Original Message
From: Walt Farrell walt.farr...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Fri, April 13, 2012 11:11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:05:57 -0400, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Reading through this thread, quickly
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:20:09 -0700, Lloyd Fuller leful...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Some of it would be difficult unless you embed at least some assembler in the
Metal C stuff. For example, all date handling is removed from Metal C even the
capability of getting the system date although that is
Walt,
That's great that you indicate they can be in Metal C, but I haven't seen any
examples from IBM in there manuals. Also, it would be desirable to say 'yes'
you can or 'no' you can't, it would help customers and us developers, IMHO.
Examples are a great source for learning and helpful
Good idea, wrong address. Walt is retired.
However the idea is really good. There many cases where IBM should
prepare some sample exits (*). Even (as usually) in as is mode of
responsibility.
(*) I didn't say there are no sample exits from IBM. I said we lack some
other exits.
--
Radoslaw
R.S.
I have customers also asking for help , sample exits, we do security product
work.
So I know what IBM goes through also. But IBM being big Blue , how does one get
someone to listen or pay attention to customer needs ? We are small and always
listen to our customers.
Fwiw
Regards,
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:15:19 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
Mind you, I wouldn't want to be the one supporting three different languages
for all those DSECTS ...
But it *would* be awfully helpful if IBM did it for us... :)
I wonder again why, nowadays, IBM doesn't make a product of PL/X.
Another consideration might be IBM doesn't need to worry about backward
compatability or unreasonable user concerns and requirements.
On Apr 14, 2012 12:57 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:15:19 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
Mind you, I wouldn't want
Bob:
You are correct. Example: TSO code that won't be touched unless some
BCP code breaks it. Even then some of it is so poorly documented IBM
might just withdraw the broken part (example a TSO COMMAND (depending
on what it is) ) The last major overhaul was the convertor
interpreter
John McKown writes:
The chances of us getting a current machine depends quite a bit
on the US Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare, especially the
80:20 rule. Which has destroyed our profitability. We basically
cannot run the company on only 20% of our policy income.
Apologies in advance for the
Hey Bob,
What us users of z/Pdt ?
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Apr 12, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Bob Shannon bshan...@rocketsoftware.com wrote:
What about folks not running Z9 for z/os 2.1 ?
2.1 requires an architectural level set.
If you are
What us users of z/Pdt ?
Well, everything I know came from the SOD. I have no inside information. Having
said that I can't imagine IBM not supporting 2.1 on a zPDT. Send a note to Bill
Ogden for a definitive answer.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
https://www-304.ibm.com/partnerworld/wps/servlet/ContentHandler/stg_com_sys_zpdt_announcement
z/PDT v 1.3 update available for download Mar 31, 2012 emulates z/196.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hey Bob,
What us users of z/Pdt ?
Sent from my iPad
Bob,
Will do and thank you
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Apr 13, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Bob Shannon bshan...@rocketsoftware.com wrote:
What us users of z/Pdt ?
Well, everything I know came from the SOD. I have no inside information.
Having said
It is also interesting (to me) to point out that Metal C uses the same
back-end.
Metal-C generates assembler code which is not dependent on the C library or
LE, supports user inlined assembler code, etc. Just like with C/C++, you
can specify ARCH(),TUNE(), INLINE, etc.
With the explosion of new
On 12 Apr 2012 09:48:17 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Now that you mention it, I remember that the C/C++ compiler has a architecture
option to control the instructions generated. I should have known that the
PL/X compiler would too. I didn't know that they both share the same
On 12 Apr 2012 21:45:22 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
According to Tom Ross (of IBM COBOL development) at SHARE last year, they are
working
on migrating the back end to the same one that PL/I uses. (And I am
assuming the same
one some of the other languages also use.)
No idea if
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:24 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
It is also interesting (to me) to point out that Metal C
uses the same
back-end.
Metal-C generates assembler code which is not dependent
Morris
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
On 12 Apr 2012 09:48:17 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Now that you mention it, I remember that the C/C++ compiler
has a architecture option to control the instructions
and The
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Clark Morris
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
On 12 Apr 2012 09:48
I personally wouldn't use Metal-C for writing exits. Unless they are
very simple structures the DSECT conversion utility is painful due to
the ambiguous syntax of assembler data declarations. It takes a best
guess, which sometimes works and sometimes makes a horrible mess.
If IBM provided C
On 13 April 2012 10:23, Kirk Wolf k...@dovetail.com wrote:
It is also interesting (to me) to point out that Metal C uses the same
back-end.
One would think so, but I'm not so sure...
Metal-C generates assembler code which is not dependent on the C library or
LE, supports user inlined
On 14/04/2012 12:24 AM, Tony Harminc wrote:
snip
But it may be that when writing high performance assembler routines it
is now a lot harder to win a battle with a compiler that has advanced
knowledge of the underlying machine internals.
Tony H.
On 14/04/2012 12:24 AM, Tony Harminc wrote:
On 13 April 2012 10:23, Kirk Wolfk...@dovetail.com wrote:
It is also interesting (to me) to point out that Metal C uses the same
back-end.
One would think so, but I'm not so sure...
Metal-C generates assembler code which is not dependent on the C
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:24 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
snip
But it may be that when writing high performance assembler
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:13:31 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
I personally wouldn't use Metal-C for writing exits. Unless they are
very simple structures the DSECT conversion utility is painful due to
the ambiguous syntax of assembler data declarations. It takes a best
guess, which sometimes works
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Tony Harminc
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 12:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
On 13 April 2012 10:23, Kirk Wolf k...@dovetail.com wrote
On 14/04/2012 12:51 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:13:31 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
I personally wouldn't use Metal-C for writing exits. Unless they are
very simple structures the DSECT conversion utility is painful due to
the ambiguous syntax of assembler data
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:44:19 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
What I find the most disappoinging about that list is it forces you to
FLOAT(IEEE)! How useful is that for most assembler programs? I suppose
it's to keep the size of the runtime down
to only support functions for one floating point
snip
The interesting thing about Metal-C is that the runtime is shipped as
part of the base operating system. So even if you don't have
a C license
there's lots of good stuff in there.
Isn't much the same true for LE?
-- gil
I don't know about the Metal-C subroutines. But I write LE
On 14/04/2012 1:02 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:44:19 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
What I find the most disappoinging about that list is it forces you to
FLOAT(IEEE)! How useful is that for most assembler programs? I suppose
it's to keep the size of the runtime down
to only
On 4/12/2012 9:03 AM, David Crayford wrote:
AFAIK, the PL/X compiler shares a back-end with the other code optimizers, so
should produce excellent code.
Not yet.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-338-0400 x318
On 14/04/2012 1:38 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 4/12/2012 9:03 AM, David Crayford wrote:
AFAIK, the PL/X compiler shares a back-end with the other code
optimizers, so should produce excellent code.
Not yet.
So does that mean that the PL/X compiler produces inferior code to the
Metal/C
INLINE when OPTIMIZE(0) is in effect
All suboptions of INLINE
Doesn't the use of metal/builtins.h negate the useful of INLINE?
Lloyd
- Original Message
From: Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Fri, April 13, 2012 12:24:15 PM
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP
.
- Original Message
From: Tony Harminct...@harminc.net
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Fri, April 13, 2012 12:24:15 PM
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
On 13 April 2012 10:23, Kirk Wolfk...@dovetail.com wrote:
It is also interesting (to me) to point out that Metal C uses the same
back-end.
One
On 4/13/2012 10:46 AM, David Crayford wrote:
On 14/04/2012 1:38 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 4/12/2012 9:03 AM, David Crayford wrote:
AFAIK, the PL/X compiler shares a back-end with the other code optimizers,
so should produce excellent code.
Not yet.
So does that mean that the PL/X
On 14/04/2012 2:10 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 4/13/2012 10:46 AM, David Crayford wrote:
On 14/04/2012 1:38 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 4/12/2012 9:03 AM, David Crayford wrote:
AFAIK, the PL/X compiler shares a back-end with the other code
optimizers, so should produce excellent code.
Not
of TennesseeSM and The
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
On 4/13/2012 10:46 AM, David Crayford wrote:
On 14/04/2012 1:38 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 4/12
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of David Crayford
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
snip
Thanks for the info! Seems like IBM are more interested
On 13 April 2012 14:53, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
Sounds like what is done by the GNU compiler people. From what I've read, all
the GNU compilers utilize the same back end code generator. IIRC, at one
time the non-C compilers really did a language to C conversion,
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
snip
Thanks for the info! Seems like IBM are more interested in the
middleware (Websphere!) then the OS! How does that make sense?
That's where the money is. Now days, the hardware and the OS are mainly there
to support the applications. Which makes
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 12:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Snipped
(But how does PL/S deal with it? Perhaps the DSECT
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Sounds like what is done by the GNU compiler people. From what I've read, all
the GNU compilers utilize the same back end code generator. IIRC, at one
time the non-C compilers really did a language to C conversion, followed by
a C compile. I don't know
http://www.opencobol.org/
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Haha, I think there were GCC
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
On 13 April 2012 14:53, McKown, John
john.mck
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
http://www.opencobol.org/
HTH
Peter
-Original Message
On 13 April 2012 14:10, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote:
Yes. This has been one of the justifications for not having a new z/OS
Architectural Level Set i.e., the existing PL/X compiler cannot generate
code that takes advantage of the newer hardware features, so why force
: Modernizing the BCP code ?
http://www.opencobol.org/
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Haha, I think
-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
http://www.opencobol.org/
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012
The fly in that ointment would be PL/S constructs like this one in
the DCBD macro:
%DCBD: MACRO KEYS(DATASET_ORG,DEVICE_TYPE,BASED_VALUE);
ANS('?' || MACLABEL || ' DCBDP ' || MACKEYS || ';') SKIP;
%END DCBD;
Or this one in DCBE:
DCBE: MACRO KEYS(END_OF_DATA_NAME,GET_SIZE,
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Jim Mulder
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 5:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Snipped
The PL/X structure and Assembler DSECT for the DCBE
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:05:57 -0400, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Reading through this thread, quickly, it very obvious that certain exits must
be in Assembler.
So your kind of a captive audience. I am speaking of security type products. I
have beem experimenting in C , not being a C
Hi
We try to modernize our code here, with relative instructions, long
displacements , immediate s etc etc
What about the control program ?
Just got some REXX IRXINIT dumps, and seems to me the code is not very
modern.
Who is gonne pay for just modernizing without any other benefits?
Kees.
Miklos Szigetvari miklos.szigetv...@isis-papyrus.com wrote in
message news:4f86e3b1.1020...@isis-papyrus.com...
Hi
We try to modernize our code here, with relative instructions, long
displacements , immediate s
and seems to me the code is not very modern
First, there are structures in the BCP code that are 40 years old. They haven't
changed and are extremely difficult to change.
Second, z/OS 1.13 will IPL on a z900/z800. This means the BCP can only use
instructions supported by those processors.
Miklos Szigetvari wrote:
Hi
We try to modernize our code here, with relative instructions, long
displacements , immediate s etc etc
What about the control program ?
Just got some REXX IRXINIT dumps, and seems to me the code is not very
modern.
snip
If you look at the past several releases'
Hi
I appreciate your answer, and understand your point
I have just seen the REXX (System REXX etc ? ) IRXINIT dump, and looked
into the SYS1.SHASSRC.
On 4/12/2012 4:49 PM, John Eells wrote:
Miklos Szigetvari wrote:
Hi
We try to modernize our code here, with relative instructions, long
@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Miklos Szigetvari
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:16 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Hi
We try to modernize our code here, with relative instructions, long
displacements , immediate s etc etc
What about the control program
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Hi
We try to modernize our code here, with relative instructions, long
displacements , immediate s etc etc
What about the control program ?
Just got some REXX IRXINIT dumps, and seems to me the code
is not very
modern
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:14:34 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
Has IBM upgraded the PL/AS(current name?) compiler to emit
Relative and Immediate instructions?.
Probably, since the RI facility was required for OS/390 2.10.
The new instructions may (or may not) be less resource
efficient that the
Bob,
What about folks not running Z9 for z/os 2.1 ?
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Apr 12, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Bob Shannon bshan...@rocketsoftware.com wrote:
and seems to me the code is not very modern
First, there are structures in the BCP
@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of David Crayford
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
AFAIK, the PL/X compiler shares a back-end with the other code
optimizers, so should produce excellent code. The compiler team is in
Toronto and I
What about folks not running Z9 for z/os 2.1 ?
2.1 requires an architectural level set.
If you are running a z9 or higher (i.e., z10, z196 or z114), then you will be
fine.
If you are running a processor prior to a z9 (i.e., z800/z900, z890/z990) then
you need a new processor if you want to
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:16 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
snip/
Oh, and one other reason to use at least one Branch
On 13/04/2012 12:45 AM, McKown, John wrote:
Now that you mention it, I remember that the C/C++ compiler has a architecture
option to control the instructions generated. I should have known that the PL/X
compiler would too. I didn't know that they both share the same back-end. I
wish that the
Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:34 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Bob,
What about folks not running Z9 for z/os 2.1 ?
Sent from my iPad
the BCP code ?
On 13/04/2012 12:45 AM, McKown, John wrote:
Now that you mention it, I remember that the C/C++ compiler
has a architecture option to control the instructions
generated. I should have known that the PL/X compiler would
too. I didn't know that they both share the same back-end. I
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:49:08 -0400, John Eells wrote:
Miklos Szigetvari wrote:
Just got some REXX IRXINIT dumps, and seems to me the code is not very
modern.
But backwater code that lives far away from any
frequently-traveled mainstream code path is an unlikely optimization target.
I'e
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 12:49 -0400, David Crayford wrote:
Also at Share I heard that COBOL will indeed share the same back-end and
have all the nice optimizations in future releases of z/OS. They said
that they are going to share the Java optimizer technology
That would surprise me, since
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 12:45 -0400, McKown, John wrote:
I am constantly amazed at the amount of code generate by a simpe:
ADD +1 TO WS-INTEGER.
when WS-INTEGER is defined as PIC S9(9) BINARY
Try defining it as COMP-5 (or compile with TRUNC(BIN)) and see if that
improves the generated code?
W dniu 2012-04-12 18:52, McKown, John pisze:
Apparently pre-z9 processors will not be able to IPL z/OS version 2
at all. I would guess a hard wait at IPL/NIP time.
I'm curious: how much politics influenced on that decision?
As far as I know, z9 wasn't so revolutionary generation.
A big
So, I suspect it was political decision whether to support z/990 and z9.
I think supporting the older processors this long was a marketing decision.
Sooner or later they had to drop off and now they have. zVM V6 requires a z10
processor or higher, so it's somewhat surprising that z9s are still
-
From: McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
Now that you mention it, I remember that the C/C++ compiler has a
architecture
option to control the instructions generated
the BCP code ?
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 12:45 -0400, McKown, John wrote:
I am constantly amazed at the amount of code generate by a simpe:
ADD +1 TO WS-INTEGER.
when WS-INTEGER is defined as PIC S9(9) BINARY
Try defining it as COMP-5 (or compile with TRUNC(BIN)) and see
W dniu 2012-04-12 19:31, Bob Shannon pisze:
So, I suspect it was political decision whether to support z/990
and z9.
I think supporting the older processors this long was a marketing
decision. Sooner or later they had to drop off and now they have. zVM
V6 requires a z10 processor or higher, so
Yes, but z/VM 5.4 is still supported and marketed.
zVM 5.4 was withdrawn from marketing December 12, 2011. It goes out of service
September 20, 2013.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 12:45 -0400, McKown, John wrote:
I am constantly amazed at the amount of code generate by a simpe:
ADD +1 TO WS-INTEGER
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:25:34 +0200, R.S. wrote:
As far as I know, z9 wasn't so revolutionary generation.
z9 introduced these facilities:
DAT-enhancement facility 2
ETF2-enhancement facility
ETF3-enhancement facility
Extended-immediate facility
HFP-unnormalized-extensions facility
the BCP code ?
W dniu 2012-04-12 18:52, McKown, John pisze:
Apparently pre-z9 processors will not be able to IPL z/OS version 2
at all. I would guess a hard wait at IPL/NIP time.
I'm curious: how much politics influenced on that decision?
As far as I know, z9 wasn't so revolutionary
W dniu 2012-04-12 20:25, Bob Shannon pisze:
Yes, but z/VM 5.4 is still supported and marketed.
zVM 5.4 was withdrawn from marketing December 12, 2011. It goes out of service
September 20, 2013.
I knew I should check it again before sending ;-)
My fault.
BTW: Sept 2013 is not tomorrow.
--
W dniu 2012-04-12 20:47, Tom Marchant pisze:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:25:34 +0200, R.S. wrote:
As far as I know, z9 wasn't so revolutionary generation.
z9 introduced these facilities:
• DAT-enhancement facility 2
• ETF2-enhancement facility
• ETF3-enhancement facility
• Extended-immediate
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:30:24 +0200, R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2012-04-12 20:47, Tom Marchant pisze:
z9 introduced these facilities:
...
So what? How does it compare to 50+ new instructions in z10?
A big change was introduced with z/990 and later with z10.
z20, yes. z990, not so much. And a big
Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
I actually checked that. The code is slightly different, but
I don't see that it's much better.
01
and Health Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
I actually checked
W dniu 2012-04-12 22:44, Tom Marchant pisze:
[...]
Just to remain: z/990 introduced CSS concept,
60 LPARs, 1024 channels,
30 LPARs and 512 channels on the z990. CSS and
greater than 256 channels was quite a significant
architectural change, IMO
60 LPARs and 1024 channels. And SPANNED
According to Tom Ross (of IBM COBOL development) at SHARE last year, they are
working
on migrating the back end to the same one that PL/I uses. (And I am
assuming the same
one some of the other languages also use.)
No idea if that would fix COBOL arithmetic.
Frank
Frank,
That is close to
88 matches
Mail list logo
