Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:19:37 +, Martin Packer wrote: >But Unconditional being all 4 bits set was what I wanted elucidation on. >Perhaps I'm being thick, or perhaps it's a special case. Condition code has two bits, giving it four possible values, 0, 1, 2, or 3. The mask bits in the

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

cker Blog: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker From: Tom Marchant <000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 12/02/2016 13:37 Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

Packer Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 6:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code Thanks for spelling it out. I needed it. :-( :-) And maybe it helped the young'uns. :-) Cheers, Martin Martin Packer, zChampion, Principal Systems

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> wrote on 02/12/2016 12:02:10 PM: > From: "Webster, Chris" <chris_webs...@bmc.com> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 02/12/2016 12:03 PM > Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GN

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

orks/blogs/MartinPacker From: "Cannaerts, Jan" <jan.cannae...@socmut.be> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 11/02/2016 14:17 Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List m...@listserv.ua.edu>

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

The first instruction is indeed SR 15,15. Feel free to either browse the load module, or "list I" it in TSO TEST. 1BFF07FE I've been thinking of getting it tattood somewhere. They are 4 really iconic bytes if you think about it. >>The simplest code for a Br14 is >> >> LA

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

ttps://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker From: Ed Gould <edgould1...@comcast.net> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 12/02/2016 05:27 Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On 16Feb11:0945-0600, Mike Schwab wrote: > >From A22-6821-0 S/360 Principle of Operations: > > CONDITION CODE SETTINGS FOR FIXED-POINT ARITHMETIC > x'00', x'01', x'10', x'11' > 0 (equal) 1 (<0) 2 (>0) 3 (error, overflow) Does anyone else (Google doesn't) remember the ELHO acronym? Equal-

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

dlc@gmail.com (David L. Craig) writes: > Does anyone else (Google doesn't) remember the ELHO acronym? > > Equal- mask '8' > Low - mask '4' > High - mask '2' > Overflow - mask '1' > > Back in the days of no extended mnemonic opcodes it was > quite the assembler programming aid. I

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

We had one in early XA ESP where it was 'Not Aligned' and the BMP's went nuts. CNOP (0,4) fixed it. Think it was one we skipped HBB4410 where it was omitted in early deliveries. Last time I looked the 'fly catcher' went away. In a message dated 2/11/2016 1:54:14 P.M. Central Standard

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

Cannaerts, Jan wrote: > 1BFF07FE >I've been thinking of getting it tattood somewhere. They are 4 really iconic >bytes if you think about it. Careful fella, IEFBR14 is APARable. If that module changes (bigger than zero probability), you'll have to make a plan with that ugly tattoo...

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

, 2016 7:59 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:14:10 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:39:45 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: I have not been following this thread -- seemed like IBMMAIN

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

7 Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> Considering IBM's practicing of OCO (if that was in place at the time of that APAR's release?), why would IEFBR14 have needed an APA

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

. Regards, Jan >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Mike Myers >Sent: donderdag 11 februari 2016 2:12 >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

ssion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Packer Sent: donderdag 11 februari 2016 3:27 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code Humour me and tell us all what setting the 4 bits in 15 means here. I had actua

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

-7802-245-584 > > email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com > > Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker > Blog: > https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker > > > > From: "Cannaerts, Jan" <jan.cannae...@socmut.be> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTS

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:22:36 +, David L. Craig wrote: > >Does anyone else (Google doesn't) remember the ELHO acronym? > Isn't that the lead-in for extended SMTP protocol exchange? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On 2016-02-11 15:46, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Does anyone else (Google doesn't) remember the ELHO acronym? > Isn't that the lead-in for extended SMTP protocol exchange? Almost... "EHLO". -- Regards, Gord Tomlin Action Software International (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) Tel: (905)

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:26:19 +0100, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > >> But does IEFBR14 do this? :-) >> // EXEC PGM=IEFBR14,PARM='--help' > >Of course not. On z/OS help is available with "TSO HELP xyz". So I tried "TSO >HELP IEFBR14" and got: > >HELP NOT AVAILABLE+ >COMMAND IEFBR14 NOT FOUND, FOR MORE

AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

> But does IEFBR14 do this? :-) > > // EXEC PGM=IEFBR14,PARM='--help' Of course not. On z/OS help is available with "TSO HELP xyz". So I tried "TSO HELP IEFBR14" and got: HELP NOT AVAILABLE+ COMMAND IEFBR14 NOT FOUND, FOR MORE HELP ENTER HELP Cute! -- Peter Hunkeler

AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

> ?That doesn?t apply to ?true?, though, right?? > ?Of course not, use some common sense.? That would require the knowledge of /bin/true to be common sense, which I doubt. I like the idea of help being available even for what might look like an obvious command to some. -- Peter Hunkeler

AW: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

> IEFBR14 is not a TSO command. Really? I learn something new every day, that's great :-) -- Peter Hunkeler -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On 16Feb10:1926+0100, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > > > IEFBR14 is not a TSO command. > > Really? I learn something new every day, that's great :-) Indeed, it was written before there was a Time Sharing Option (possibly even imagined). And it was APARed. Twice, I believe. -- May the LORD God

AW: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

>> Really? I learn something new every day, that's great :-) > >Indeed, it was written before there was a Time Sharing >Option (possibly even imagined). And it was APARed. >Twice, I believe. Ohh my. The TSO HELP post was meant to be a joke. That didn't work, obviously. In German we say

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:36:07 -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote: >Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> In fact, that's a call back to the shell builtin, which: >> >> o May involve extra overhead of fork()/exec(). >/bin/sh in OpenBSD is tightly integrated with OpenBSD. It's ksh, not bash or >old sh, and it's

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:26:17 +0100, Peter Hunkeler wrote: >> ?That doesn?t apply to ?true?, though, right?? >> ?Of course not, use some common sense.? > >That would require the knowledge of /bin/true to be common sense, which I >doubt. I like the idea of help being available even for what might

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

Germans got rid of anyone with a sense of humor in WW2. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > >>> Really? I learn something new every day, that's great :-) > > >>Indeed, it was written before there was a Time Sharing >>Option (possibly even imagined). And it was

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:39 PM, David L. Craig wrote: On 16Feb10:1926+0100, Peter Hunkeler wrote: IEFBR14 is not a TSO command. Really? I learn something new every day, that's great :-) Indeed, it was written before there was a Time Sharing Option (possibly even imagined). And it was

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

Paul Gilmartin wrote: In fact, that's a call back to the shell builtin, which: o May involve extra overhead of fork()/exec(). /bin/sh in OpenBSD is tightly integrated with OpenBSD. It's ksh, not bash or old sh, and it's maintained in the OBSD core. Probably the most attentive maintenance of

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Feb 10, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:26:17 +0100, Peter Hunkeler wrote: ?That doesn?t apply to ?true?, though, right?? ?Of course not, use some common sense.? That would require the knowledge of /bin/true to be common sense, which I doubt. I like the

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On 16Feb10:1517-0600, Ed Gould wrote: > Well thats true but what does selling and trying to get people to believe in > a unprovable being(if there is such a descriptive word) have to do with the > thread? The same as any other signature has to do with any thread? -- May the LORD God bless you

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

Google search with the search terms - Iefbr14 site:IBM.com Yields a bunch of results, including IBM manuals. HTH, Linda Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 10, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Ed Gould wrote: > >> On Feb 10, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> >> On Wed, 10 Feb

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:14:10 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:39:45 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: > >>I have not been following this thread -- seemed like IBMMAIN navel-gazing -- >>but FWIW IEFBR14 seems to be documented in the JCL U/G. >> >I like to maintain the distinction

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:59 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:14:10 -0600

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On 16Feb10:2043-0800, Steve Beaver wrote: > The simplest code for a Br14 is > > LA R15,0 > BR 14 > > It is a 2 instruction program that is as simple as it gets No, the original was even simpler: just the BC 15,14 instruction. Fortunately, its behavior was

AW: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

>> LA R15,0 >> BR 14 >> >> It is a 2 instruction program that is as simple as it gets > > I think that LA is actually a XR 15,15 or a SR 15,15. The latter. -- Peter Hunkeler German speaking *Swiss* guy --

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

But can it IPL in 390 mode? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 9:44 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: Note that the zero'ing of 15 was one of the 2 mentioned APARs. The original version did not clear 15 before returning via 14. I forget what the other APAR was for. /Every program can be optimized by at least one byte. Every program has at least one bug.

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

forget what the other APAR was for. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:59 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

I would have written it like this: HELP NOT AVAILABLE+ COMMAND IEFBR14 NOT FOUND, PLEASE TRY AGAIN LATER I mean... the HELP member could be available *sometime*, right? And at least that keeps you from getting stuck in a loop with no WAIT. Peter Hunkeler wrote: But does IEFBR14 do this?

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code Google search with the search terms - Iefbr14 site:IBM.com Yields a bunch of results, including IBM manuals. HTH, Linda Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 10, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Ed Go

Re: AW: Re: You thought IEFBR14 was bad? Try GNU's /bin/true code

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:39:45 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >I have not been following this thread -- seemed like IBMMAIN navel-gazing -- >but FWIW IEFBR14 seems to be documented in the JCL U/G. > I like to maintain the distinction between a Guide and a Reference. The Guide describes techniques;