Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

>You might find forthcoming APAR OA47689 PTF UA90982 of interest. This is >likely to be on or about December 10. >It is likely that no additional information will be available until that >time. >Instead of "installation pick" it might be "installation tells the system >what is available, and

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 6:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? In <sn1pr0101mb1520a1ecdd98150f6c931ef3ce...@sn1pr0101mb1520.prod.exchangelabs.com>, on 12/01/2015

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:44 AM, J O Skip Robinson wrote: > I'm grateful to this thread for the news that MVCIN lives on. When it > disappeared on the 3090--talk about unexpected S0C1--I did a brief RIP and > never looked for it again. MVCIN allowed you to reverse a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

In , on 12/01/2015 at 10:57 PM, J O Skip Robinson said: >MVCIN was indeed a useful instruction. I encountered it (IIRC) on a >4381. I assumed that, like typical new instructions, it would

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:44:38 +, J O Skip Robinson wrote: >I'm grateful to this thread for the news that MVCIN lives on. When it >disappeared on the 3090--talk about unexpected S0C1--I did a brief RIP and >never looked for it again. MVCIN allowed you to reverse a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:52:05 +, Bob Shannon wrote: >> Amdahl responded by shipping some code that was loaded early in IPL >>to accommodate the new instructions > >SE and SP Assist. They trapped the ab

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 12/01/2015 10:27 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:52:05 +, Bob Shannon wrote: Amdahl responded by shipping some code that was loaded early in IPL to accommodate the new instructions SE and SP Assist. They trapped the abend in the FLIH. I remember it well. That's SE

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

er 01, 2015 7:27 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? That's SE Assist. And it led to the design on the 580 series of computers that provided a third state of operation called (IIRC) System state. The 580 design i

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:05 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? On 12/01/2015 10:27 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:52:05 +0

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Dec 1, 2015, at 3:19 PM, J O Skip Robinson wrote: Timeframe was 1980 plus or minus. I was a true novice sysprog and kept an arm's length from OS innards. It was during that two-year gig that MVS/SP was announced, so not likely available just yet. I only remember being impressed with the

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 1 December 2015 at 17:57, J O Skip Robinson wrote: > MVCIN was indeed a useful instruction. I encountered it (IIRC) on a 4381. > I assumed that, like typical new instructions, it would stick around for > the duration. I was later shocked to discover that it had been

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Mike Schwab wrote: >How about compiling at all ARCHLEVELs, then letting the installation >pick which level to install. Have the install program issue a warning >if the current machine does not meet the ARCHLEVEL selected. I like the core of your idea. All levels might be too much to manage (7

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:52:05 +, Bob Shannon wrote: >> Amdahl responded by shipping some code that was loaded early in IPL to >>accommodate the new instructions > >SE and SP Assist. They trapped the abend in the FLIH. I remember it well. That's SE Assist. And it led to the design on the 580

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

> Amdahl responded by shipping some code that was loaded early in IPL to > accommodate the new instructions SE and SP Assist. They trapped the abend in the FLIH. I remember it well. Bob Shannon Rocket Software Rocket Software, Inc. and subsidiaries ■ 77 Fourth

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Ed Gould wrote: On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Charles Mills wrote: SNIP- With the advent of facility and function indications in z/Architecture, the technique of trial execution should be avoided - particularly if a workload may be relocated to

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

>How about compiling at all ARCHLEVELs, then letting the installation >pick which level to install. Have the install program issue a warning >if the current machine does not meet the ARCHLEVEL selected. You might find forthcoming APAR OA47689 PTF UA90982 of interest. This is likely to be on or

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

--Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Ed Gould > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:49 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > > Charles: >

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

In <1a619cdc-a055-40ec-9821-4337587d6...@copper.net>, on 11/29/2015 at 08:17 PM, Stevet said: >This is why you have specialty routines that you load and if I >remember correctly, IDENTIFY. You don't need IDENTIFY unless you want to use system assisted linkage to a name

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

al Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM- m...@listserv.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:22 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles, I have been watching this thread a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles: On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > Sorry. MSUs are *incredibly* impo

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: Charles Mills wrote: --SNIP Shipping the source is utterly out of the question, Of course, you have to be crazy if you give away your bread and butter source for all the

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:49 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I don't know what your company sells and wonder why anyone

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles: Then the issue *IS* correct and *IS* appropriate. I am suggesting that if the discussion had started out with that understanding

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

start. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. Craig Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 4:24 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Then there'

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

In , on 11/30/2015 at 11:44 PM, J O Skip Robinson said: >When I was a novice sysprog, my shop had an Amdahl. MVS at that >time predated 'system product'. (Way back.) IBM shipped a new

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I don't know what your company sells and wonder why anyone would pay "extra" for a few seconds of cpu savings gain. I suspect you (or your management) is making a mountain out of a mole h

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:44 PM, J O Skip Robinson wrote: I'm reaching back a long way to stretch the notion of 'straightforward', but here goes. When I was a novice sysprog, my shop had an Amdahl. MVS at that time predated 'system product'. (Way back.) IBM shipped a new level of MVS that

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Sorry. MSUs are *incredibly* important to some (most?) customers. They are a major buy/no-buy decider. I cannot ship z900 code and shrug my shoulders about performance on a z13. IBM (as an example) has come to realize

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Interesting. That makes sense. I've got a better method anyway, but you know what IBM says now? I just happened to run into this a few minutes ago. (From the Nov. 2012 PoOp) Programming Note: Prior to the introduction of z/Architecture, determination of the presence of a facility was often

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

f Ed Gould Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles: On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Charles Mills wrote: Sorry. MSUs are *incredibly* important to some (most?) customers. They are a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 15Nov30:1354-0600, Ed Gould wrote: > On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: > > >Charles Mills wrote: > >--SNIP > >>Shipping the source is utterly out of the question, > > > >Of course, you have to be crazy if

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

2015 11:44 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > > I confess to not having slogged through this thread, but from the beginning > I've wondered why no one has suggested the static system symbol > System symbols

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Charles Mills wrote: SNIP- With the advent of facility and function indications in z/Architecture, the technique of trial execution should be avoided - particularly if a workload may be relocated to another system

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

John McKown wrote: >​... Such as IAZYREG, ... I believe it should be renamed to LazyRegs... ;-) >​Of course, my code is "weird" in that I cause HLASM to flag the instruction: > LG R10,DOUBLE >because, in my case, it should be: > LG R10_64,DOUBLE​ >​And so on. Interesting. That is a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

iously, thanks for your input. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:22 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? C

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

>For others not really familiar to assembler programs, in Kirk listing there is >a line YREGS. >YREGS <-- That is a list of register value declarations/constants. You will have to provide your own list. YREGS is shipped in SYS1.MACLIB. It only provides equates for GPRs. Bob Shannon

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Bob Shannon wrote: >YREGS is shipped in SYS1.MACLIB. It only provides equates for GPRs. Duh, yes, you're right of course. Thanks for curing my blue Monday ignorance! Much appreciated. And there is SYS1.MACLIB(IAZYREG), which includes both GPR and Access Registers. Groete / Greetings Elardus

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Bob Shannon wrote: > >For others not really familiar to assembler programs, in Kirk listing > there is a line YREGS. > > >YREGS <-- That is a list of register value declarations/constants. > You will have to provide your own

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Charles Mills wrote: >Sorry. MSUs are *incredibly* important to some (most?) customers. They are a >major buy/no-buy decider. Indeed. Other questions customers also asked to vendors (from what I know and found out over the years): - How easy is it to install? With SMP/E (increasingly

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

IN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > Charles Mills has a reason. But part of that reason is that he's > running ... Right. And dealing with imperfect co-workers dealing with imperfect information from sales and pre-sales and a boss

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

≫> My boss wants something more user-friendly than a S0C1. Like a S0C1:) ??? Chris Hoelscher Technology Architect, Database Infrastructure Services Technology Solution Services : humana.com 123 East Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 Humana.com (502) 714-8615, (502) 476-2538 email to

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 12:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I am not a LOADXX guru but looks like

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

ERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I confess to not having slogged through this thread, but from the beginning I've wondered why no one has suggested the static system symbol System symbols can be queried from pretty much any environment. T

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of J O Skip Robinson Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 12:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I get it. There are different meanings

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

o: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? What is still missing is a reason why someone should want to do this sort of check. Only with that information could one answer a question such as "should we also check CVTVEF?". Checking CVTV

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

, November 29, 2015 10:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Two corrections: 1. At several points in this thread I think I may have said "facility bits in the CVT." I wuz of course confused. Make that &quo

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

What is still missing is a reason why someone should want to do this sort of check. Only with that information could one answer a question such as "should we also check CVTVEF?". Checking CVTVEF will tell you if the vector extension facility is present *and* that that operating system is

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Kirk Wolf wrote: >FYI, I noticed that there are some cut/paste errors in the comments (only) for >ARCH(7) and ARCH(8). Nevermind, real Assembler programmers don't bother with comments. ;-) "Comments? What is that new-fangled thing? They're just making my source listings 'dirty'!" ;-D ;-D ;-D

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Perhaps it's too obvious, but the z/OS release level provides certain information. Specifically: 1. If you're on z/OS 1.6 or a higher 1.x release, you know you're on a z900/z800 or higher and cannot be on a 31-bit machine. 2. If you're on z/OS 2.1, you know you're on a z9 or higher. 3. If you're

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Nov 29, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Stevet wrote: This is why you have specialty routines that you load and if I remember correctly, IDENTIFY. What is being described is part of the joys of being an ISV. Imagine, back in the day, of providing code that was sensitive to JES2 releases and Maint

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

2015 12:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I get it. There are different meanings of 'architecture level'. You need more granularity. Not knowing the ins and outs of the various control blocks suggested by others, I

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

This is why you have specialty routines that you load and if I remember correctly, IDENTIFY. What is being described is part of the joys of being an ISV. Imagine, back in the day, of providing code that was sensitive to JES2 releases and Maint changes. My headache w/ ACS/WYLBUR while also

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 11/29/2015 09:56 PM, Ed Gould wrote: On Nov 29, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Stevet wrote: Then supply an object deck that has the "special" instructions with instructions to relink the problem program. Put the burden on the user. BTW he has not informed us what the timing difference is. I submit

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Steve: I don't think I asked of him anything a customer wouldn't ask. Frankly if he would have responded with a 10 percent increase that would have been good enough (for me as a non customer). The bottom line are we talking about 1 second or 5000 seconds savings that would be good

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

mbler! Will run on Connor's z890! > > Charles > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Kirk Wolf > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 3:12 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Straightforw

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Here's a brute force assembler translation of my quick decoding of doc for "ARCHLEVEL" in the z/OS V2R2 C/C++ UG. NB: It would be great if someone could get IBM to confirm that these are the correct FACL bits described by the ARC

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Here's a brute force assembler translation of my quick decoding of doc for "ARCHLEVEL" in the z/OS V2R2 C/C++ UG. NB: It would be great if someone could get IBM to confirm that these are the correct FACL bits described by the ARCHLEVEL doc. It returns "9" as expected on the z196 machine that I

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

me Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Kirk Wolf > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 3:12 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > > Here's a brute force assembler translation of my q

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 11/28/2015 06:12:04 PM: > * Test ARCH(6) > * long-displacement facility > TMFaclByte2,FaclLongDisplacement > BNO EXIT > LAR15,6 ARCH(6) I would recommend using

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

>Are there other functions also absent when z/OS is >running as a guest under z/VM? >If so, where is that documented? I'm sure the answer to the first is "yes", and I don't know the answer to the second. But if you were to turn the question around and ask "where is it documented what you can

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

To answer your question directly: no there is no such way. Could there be, in the future? Sure. If z/OS base control program were to provide it, it might not be the compiler ARCH value but might be the machine generation number (which happens to be +2 over the compiler ARCH level) -- e.g., z13

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

I wanted to add that the list of facilities mentioned in one of the posts >ARCH(10) (xC12) execution-hint facility, the load-and-trap >facility, the miscellaneous-instruction-extension facility, and the >transactional-execution facility. leads to some interesting points. The availability of an

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Peter Relson wrote: >Further, it is not available on any z/OS release if z/OS is running under VM. Very interesting. Are there other functions also absent when z/OS is running as a guest under z/VM? If so, where is that documented? Many thanks for your excellent posts. I value them all!

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

mber 26, 2015 6:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? To answer your question directly: no there is no such way. Could there be, in the future? Sure. If z/OS base control program were to provide it, it might not be the compi

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 26 November 2015 at 09:47, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: > Peter Relson wrote: >>Further, it [Transactional Execution] is not available on any z/OS release if >>z/OS is running under VM. > > Very interesting. Are there other functions also absent when z/OS is

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

I just got on offline reply. To clarify, I mean for a program to make this determination programmatically, presumably by an LE call or z/OS control block chaining. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

rame Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles, I agree that there should be a compiler or LE API to do this.

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Charles, I agree that there should be a compiler or LE API to do this. If not: ARCH levels actually map to a set of required "Facilities" (the Principles of Operation term). You can test at the facility bits in the PSAE, mapped by IHAFACL. Then you could use the documentation on ARCH in the

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

her problem. I will post that. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 10:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardw

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Charles Mills wrote: >I just got on offline reply. Amazing you get help so fast! Good for you! >To clarify, I mean for a program to make this determination programmatically, >presumably by an LE call or z/OS control block chaining. Care to tell us what you could use? By peeking in an address

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

We have one product that that compiles their code for each architectural level. The initial module is determines the hardware and loads the remainder of the code to match the processor > but one or two pesky customers want to run on an older machine So you are saying that all of your customers

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 25 November 2015 at 11:57, Charles Mills wrote: > Is there a fairly straightforward way to determine the "architecture number" > of the hardware on which a program is actually running? By architecture > level I mean z13 = ARCH(11) and so forth, as supported by C/C++ and I

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Bob Shannon wrote: >We have one product that that compiles their code for each architectural >level. The initial module is determines the hardware and loads the remainder >of the code to match the processor How is your initial module working to determine the ARCH level? If you can't

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

> How is your initial module working to determine the ARCH level? If you can't > disclose it, it is fine It's not my product and I haven’t looked at the code. However, it's simple enough to build a table of processor types with the corresponding ARCH/MACH level. Bob Shannon Rocket Software

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? On 25 November 2015 at 11:57, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > Is there a fairly straightforward way to determine the "architecture number" > of the hardware on whi