On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:12:22 -0800, Keith E. Moe wrote:
>Second, there was one mnemonic that caught my eye. I do not know what
it does, but it's probably one that none of us will forget: PTF.
Are you certain that it wasn't PTFF (which was already described in the
current Principles of Opera
ake it easier to develop new features.
> I
> can tell you that I was at Amdahl at the time working on the 580. That was
> definitely a major reason for it.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008c.html#29 New Opcodes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008c.html#32 New Opcodes
http://www.garlic.com/~
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Schmidt
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:54:53 EST, Ed Finnell wrote:
>
> >Message dated 1/29/2008 7:49:27 A.M. CST, m42tom-ibmmain writes:
> >>
> >>I know that there are a few not
> >>listed in the POO. Still, it sou
In a message dated 1/29/2008 12:06:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Play The Flute
>>
Getting kind of silly but I liked-Plunk Twanger Froggie or Push The FUD.
**Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:54:53 EST, Ed Finnell wrote:
>Message dated 1/29/2008 7:49:27 A.M. CST, m42tom-ibmmain writes:
>>
>>I know that there are a few not
>>listed in the POO. Still, it sounds like it's a lot over 50.
>
>Those are just the graphics and sound instructions for the GDDM
replacem
In a message dated 1/29/2008 7:49:27 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know that there are a few not
listed in the POO. Still, it sounds like it's a lot over 50.
>>
Those are just the graphics and sound instructions for the GDDM replacement?
**St
I think it's "Pity The Fool." It's a very dangerous op-code to attempt.
Not many people know that Mr. T moonlights as a hardware architect.
Jon
> Second, there was one mnemonic that caught my eye. I do not
> know what it does, but it's probably one that none of us will
> forget: PTF.
>
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:47:05 -0500, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>... there was even some speculation that one of the other clone
>> processor vendors creation of "macrocode" was to enable them to quickly
>> adapt to such things (be more agile in tracking, implementing, deploying
>> changes).
There
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> actually such speculation dates back three decades to the introduction
> of cross-memory instructions and dual-addr
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> as an aside ... there was some similar speculation two decades ago about
> such stuff. there was even some speculat
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008c.html#29 New Opcodes
justification is justification ... not all have to be there based on the
same justification.
as an
On Jan 29, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
---SNIP--
getting an instruction added could require a lot of justification.
-SNIP---
Or is this "new" behavior on IBM's part to "starve" off the INTEL
Emulator?
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) writes:
> It also says, "894 instructions (668 implemented entirely in hardware)"
>
> The latest POO lists about 750 instructions.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Payne
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:43 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: New Opcodes
>
>
> New opcodes aren't something I worry too mu
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:42:37 -, Phil Payne wrote:
>
>The terminology used in the PDF file is interesting: "50+ instructions added
>to
improve
>compiled code efficiency".
It also says, "894 instructions (668 implemented entirely in hardware)"
The latest POO lists about 750 instructions. I k
New opcodes aren't something I worry too much about - I managed to solve quite
a few business
problems with System/360.
Now old opcodes - I hope they all stick around.
The terminology used in the PDF file is interesting: "50+ instructions added to
improve
compiled code efficiency&qu
The traditional way to tell if it's really good stuff if if the presentation is
given by a
diferent team and your usual IBM people are asked to leave the room.
--
Phil Payne
http://www.isham-research.co.uk
+44 7833 654 800
--
>I have never signed a NDA from IBM, but I have been told that one of the
>officers of our company has signed one that covers our company.
So, how do you find out what you're discussing is covered by NDA, or not.
A lot of IBM visitation is not NDA.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
, IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote:
In a message dated 1/28/2008 5:59:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyone who knows about this stuff can't discuss it...
I have been privy to many documents under Non-Disclosure Agreement over the
years. As far as I can rem
Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
IBM may have several different flavor of such things, but as far as I
know IBM calls them "Confidential Disclosure Agreement" - CDA.
And AECI - Agreement to Exchange Confidential Information.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, S
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:02:53 +, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>I was under one for pre-planning of MVS/ESA and it was called an
NDA at that time.
>...
Could be there are 2 different flavors, then. Maybe with different
rules.
Pat O'Keefe
-
List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Patrick O'Keefe
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 3:54 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NDAs (was New Opcodes)
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:58:41 -0500, Binyamin Dissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Well, if you are not under an NDA
>IBM calls them "Confidential Disclosure Agreement" - CDA
I was under one for pre-planning of MVS/ESA and it was called an NDA at that
time.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive acce
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:58:41 -0500, Binyamin Dissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Well, if you are not under an NDA you certainly can deny the
existence of an
>NDA.
>
>So, if you ask X if he is under an NDA:
>
> Response: No - No NDA
> No response: - NDA
>...
I don't believe any NDA morall
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:39:12 -0600 Tom Moulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Nothing should be understood to mean that you have no comment when asked of
:>the material's existence. So you do not confirm or deny the existence. If
:>that is the case, then one should also understand that you would n
>> snip
Those of us covered by NDA are contractually bound to say *nothing* until
after an official IBM announcement -- if any!
That's how it works. It's a contract between two companies. The terms
are both simple and obvious. And, anyone unable to abide by those terms
should not be made privy
(IBM Mainframe Discussion List) wrote:
... It is preferable to err on the side of caution in
such matters. Without having access to the NDA and then being given access
to a document under the NDA, I would have to assume that I should not discuss
anything regarding the NDA itself or the docum
-
I once mentioned something on this list after my manager asked me to
fill out a survey from IBM. He forwarded me the questions and never
mentioned it was NDA. He soon got a nasty email from someone at IBM and
I couldn't sit for a few days. :-) Live and
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:14:30 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I would have to assume that I should not discuss
>anything regarding the NDA itself or the document(s) with anyone other than
colleagues, and then only if they have been made aware of the NDA nature of
>the document.
>
I
>I would have to assume that I should not discuss
anything regarding the NDA itself or the document(s) with anyone other than
colleagues, and then only if they have been made aware of the NDA nature of
the document.
I agree.
The original poster violated the spirit, if not the intent, of the ND
In a message dated 1/28/2008 5:59:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Anyone who knows about this stuff can't discuss it...
I have been privy to many documents under Non-Disclosure Agreement over the
years. As far as I can remember, only once did I read and sign th
I guess I miss the point. A new processor is coming, details to follow. New
opcodes are coming; watch for HLASM PTFs to support them. How does one code the
new instructions? Wait for the POO. This is all out of sight, out of mind.
Anyone who knows about this stuff can't discuss it, and fr
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 18:23 +0900, Timothy Sipples wrote:
> Beyond that, I haven't seen any more information. So let's wait to see
> if/when IBM says more, OK?
Timothy, you'd have to be sleeping under blue plastic in a Tokyo park to
not have some idea of what's coming.
I gotta say that after all
As far as I know there are only two things IBM has said publicly about a
future mainframe processor, and I guess they could be the same or
different. Here's the first, from August:
http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/IBM-z6-mainframe-microprocessor-Webb.pdf
which says "50+ instructions added to
>> I am NOT going to post the list here, as that would be a violation of the
>> non-disclosure.
>You might already be in violation.
I tend to agree.
You could have just ended your ISV partnership with IBM!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
Keith E. Moe wrote:
I am NOT going to post the list here, as that would be a violation of the non-disclosure.
You might already be in violation.
First, there are some SIX letter mnemonics. Historically, mnemonics had been
limited to FIVE characters.
You've miscounted. (There should be
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith E. Moe
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:12 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: New Opcodes
>
>
> IBM just posted the list of new mnemonics
IBM just posted the list of new mnemonics that the HLASM will soon support
(and by inference, some new fangled type of hardware) via their
vendor non-disclosure channel.
I am NOT going to post the list here, as that would be a violation of the
non-disclosure. However, I will post a couple of
38 matches
Mail list logo
