On Mar 2, 2013, at 20:04, Charles Mills wrote:
I recall distinctly the hardware having fetch protection but there being no
apparent OS support for it.
That matches my old recollection of an Old Timer's recounting
his astonishment at having read a dump in which a Protection
Exception
To wit, nowadays, the absence in z/OS
of complete support for 64-bit virtual. (The less said of COBOL the better;
it's not part of the OS.)
Nice blinders-on statement!
COBOL may be one of the ugliest languages around, but it's also (still, I
believe) the most heavily used!
Why not cater to
paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
That matches my old recollection of an Old Timer's recounting
his astonishment at having read a dump in which a Protection
Exception appeared to have been taken on a fetch instruction.
I believe (with no good evidence) that it was controlled by
a
to make lies sound truthful and murder
acceptable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” [George
Orwell]
- Original Message -
From: Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:41:00 AM
Subject: Re: REFRPROT History Question
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#31 REFRPROT History Question
Note this is part of old exchange of trying to get page protect for 3033
... included in same hardware hits for MVSA microcode assist
Date: 02/27/80 08:37:42
From: wheeler
re: yesterday's protect bit discussion
, or something.
/nostalgia
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 7:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REFRPROT History Question
On Mar 2, 2013, at 20:04, Charles Mills
In
ofad40972b.2f224bfe-on85257b21.005f5b59-85257b21.00638...@us.ibm.com,
on 03/01/2013
at 01:07 PM, Jim Mulder d10j...@us.ibm.com said:
My understanding from folklore is that the REFR attribute predates
MVS, and its purpose was to designate modules for which a new copy
of the module could be
I recall distinctly the hardware having fetch protection but there being no
apparent OS support for it.
Charles
Composed on a mobile: please excuse my brevity
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+...@patriot.net wrote:
In
ofad40972b.2f224bfe-on85257b21.005f5b59-85257b21.00638...@us.ibm.com,
on
I understand, diachronically, why REFRPROT was made an option:
to maintain compatibility with existing dusty deck load modules.
Where the source no longer existed. And the modules were linked
NE.
But why, in the beginning, as soon as the REFR attribute was
available, were not all load modules,
] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 11:16 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: REFRPROT History Question
I understand, diachronically, why REFRPROT was made an option:
to maintain compatibility with existing dusty deck load modules.
Where the source no longer existed
I understand, diachronically, why REFRPROT was made an option:
to maintain compatibility with existing dusty deck load modules.
Where the source no longer existed. And the modules were linked
NE.
But why, in the beginning, as soon as the REFR attribute was
available, were not all load
On 1 March 2013 13:07, Jim Mulder d10j...@us.ibm.com wrote:
We have gotten to the point where Mr. Relson and myself
are among the remaining old-timers in MVS development in Poughkeepsie,
Sort of like when you look around a hospital ER, and all the doctors -
not just the interns, but even the
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:15:46 -0600, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
. . .
But why, in the beginning, as soon as the REFR attribute was
available, were not all load modules, even from non-APF authorized
libraries, loaded into write-protected storage?
I'm not sure I totally understand
On 3/1/2013 4:06 PM, Andy Wood wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:15:46 -0600, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
. . .
But why, in the beginning, as soon as the REFR attribute was
available, were not all load modules, even from non-APF authorized
libraries, loaded into write-protected
On 3/1/2013 4:06 PM, Andy Wood wrote:
Perhaps protection of modules from APF libraries was deemed to be sufficiently
important from a system integrity point of view, that they were prepared to
endure the trouble caused due to existing load modules with incorrect
attributes, while doing it for
15 matches
Mail list logo
