:
: -Original Message-
: From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
: [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
: Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:23 AM
: To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
: Subject: Re: z/OS V1.12 differences and z196 (the new
: mainframe) impacts
: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:00:07 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
If the 64-bit program calling the 24/31 bit program wants to insure
the integrity of the high end of the registers, it is ITS
responsibility to save them around the call.
That is incorrect. As clearly documented in the Assembler
...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
: : -Original Message-
: : From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
: : [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
: : Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:23 AM
: : To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
: : Subject: Re: z/OS V1.12 differences and z196 (the new
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:38:15 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
deleted
Well, we had this discussion at great length a few years ago... The
pre-existing 24- or 31-bit program that's been running for many years
now gets called by a 64-bit program,
In listserv%201009141022331100.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 09/14/2010
at 10:22 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Ah, semantics! Can a program run in AMODE(24/31) in OS/390 (in a
supported configuration) and use grande registers?
Yes. You might want to ask a different question.
--
At 09:46 -0500 on 09/15/2010, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: z/OS V1.12
differences and z196 (the new mainframe) imp:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:00:07 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
If the 64-bit program calling the 24/31 bit program wants to insure
the integrity of the high end of the
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:10:37 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
At 09:46 -0500 on 09/15/2010, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: z/OS V1.12
differences and z196 (the new mainframe) imp:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:00:07 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
If the 64-bit program calling the 24/31 bit program
At 9/13/2010 09:23 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:35:45 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
* GETMAIN now returns address of gotten area in R1 with the
leftmost word being all binary zeros, so address can be
treated as a 64-bit address
Unconditionally? That would break
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:04:47 -0400, David Cole wrote:
Except for regs 0,1,15 your assertion is true.
The high halves of those regs are not preserved across any interface
unless otherwise documented.
This is in contradiction to a verbal statement he made at a
presentation several years earlier
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: z/OS V1.12 differences and z196 (the new
mainframe) impacts
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11
/OS V1.12 differences and z196 (the new
mainframe) impacts
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:04:47 -0400, David Cole wrote:
Except for regs 0,1,15 your assertion is true.
The high halves of those regs are not preserved across any interface
unless otherwise documented.
This is in contradiction
On 14 September 2010 12:08, Walt Farrell wfarr...@us.ibm.com wrote:
This is in contradiction to a verbal statement he made at a
presentation several years earlier wherein he flatly stated that no
preexisting AMODE(24/31) program would ever behave differently (due
to the widening of the
: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:23 AM
: To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
: Subject: Re: z/OS V1.12 differences and z196 (the new
: mainframe) impacts
: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:04:47 -0400, David Cole wrote:
: Except for regs 0,1,15 your assertion is true.
: The high halves of those regs are not preserved
: To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
: Subject: Re: z/OS V1.12 differences and z196 (the new
: mainframe) impacts
: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:04:47 -0400, David Cole wrote:
: Except for regs 0,1,15 your assertion is true.
: The high halves of those regs are not preserved across any interface
: unless otherwise
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net wrote:
deleted
Well, we had this discussion at great length a few years ago... The
pre-existing 24- or 31-bit program that's been running for many years
now gets called by a 64-bit program, issues a GETMAIN which now zeros
the
: : Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:23 AM
: : To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
: : Subject: Re: z/OS V1.12 differences and z196 (the new
: : mainframe) impacts
: : On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:04:47 -0400, David Cole wrote:
: : Except for regs 0,1,15 your assertion is true.
: : The high halves of those
On 9/14/2010 8:26 AM, McKown, John wrote:
Sure. Why not. I use them for 64 bit numbers where I used to use a register
pair. Can OS/390 run on z hardware? I don't remember anymore. But use of Grande
registers in application code cannot be stopped by the OS. Of course, if you
call other
I once raised a similar question with Peter Relson. He
unequivocally asserted that no program can rely upon any part
of (including the high halves of) the volatile registers
(r15, r0 and r1) being preserved across system interfaces
(unless the interface doc states otherwise).
Here's
For the last five or six years, August / September has been
a very busy time for me. This is when the IBM publications
for the new release of z/OS become available, and I download
these pubs and read them, looking for changes that impact
your applications programmers.
Then I update the courses
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:35:45 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
* GETMAIN now returns address of gotten area in R1 with the
leftmost word being all binary zeros, so address can be
treated as a 64-bit address
Unconditionally? That would break subroutines that don't
save/restore high order parts.
On 9/13/2010 7:23 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:35:45 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
* GETMAIN now returns address of gotten area in R1 with the
leftmost word being all binary zeros, so address can be
treated as a 64-bit address
Unconditionally? That would break
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:33:13 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
R1 does not matter. From the Assembler Services Guide:
Unless otherwise defined by the individual interface, the
calling program should expect, upon return, that
* The low halves (Bits 32-63) of GPRs 2 through 13 are unchanged
* The high
On 9/13/2010 8:22 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:33:13 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
R1 does not matter. From the Assembler Services Guide:
Unless otherwise defined by the individual interface, the
calling program should expect, upon return, that
* The low halves (Bits 32-63)
23 matches
Mail list logo
