Re: Architectural Level Sets

Not quite. OS/VS1 and OS./VS2 R1 are single address space; OS/VS2 and later are multiple address spaces. MVS/SP V1.2 and later also exploit DAS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of

Old OS V2.3.0 PL/I Manuals in BookMaster format

Does anyone know if the following two PL/I V2.3.0 manuals are still somewhere around in BookMaster format: SC26-4311 - Installation and Customization under MVS LY27-9528 - Problem Determination Thanks, Robert -- Robert AH Prins robert.ah.prins(a)gmail.com The hitchhiking grandfather -

Re: Architectural Level Sets

Page 7-31 says the only condition for XA is the "move-inverse facility" has to be installed... http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/princOps/SA22-7085-1_370-XA_Principles_of_Operation_Jan87.pdf Joe On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:10 AM Seymour J Metz wrote: > Strange! The XA PoOps shows MVCIN as

Re: Architectural Level Sets

Yes, local mods could always exploit facilities that the shipped operating system did not. But the only IBM operating system that used DAS, with the possible exception of TPF, was MVS/SP. I don't know about MTS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

Re: Architectural Level Sets

Strange! The XA PoOps shows MVCIN as only available in S/370 mode. The ESA PoOps shows it as Move-inverse facility, regardless of mode, and ESA/390 PoOps shows it as standard. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM

A little magic from Doug Nadel

More than 20 years ago I wrote an edit macro "EDOEND", that lets me exclude, in PL/I source, all statements other than 'PACKAGE', 'PROC', 'PROCEDURE', 'DO', 'BEGIN', 'SELECT', and 'END' and a few days ago, using it again, I realised that it could benefit from adding a bit of Doug Nadel magic

Re: Architectural Level Sets

Why? I unashamedly use MVCIN when it's appropriate, but that hardly seems to be the case in your example. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Ed Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, September 1,

Re: Dovetail/Kirk Wolf?

It's terrific that Dovetailed is making this offer, and it's terrific to have Tomcat available and supported on z/OS. If the particular appeal of Tomcat is "it's free," you've got at least a couple alternatives that also are: 1. If you already have CICS Transaction Server Version 5.x, then you

About Enterprise PL/I - barking (up the wrong tree?)

Dear all, A few days ago I posted the following to , addressed specifically to Peter Elderon: Given part of a compiler listing (V5.2.2) below (and this is the code generated for the current source, which has been updated a bit over the weekend) 0038E8 D204 3AC0

Re: Architectural Level Sets

Don't confuse the granularity of the SSK instruction with the granularity of page table entries. MVS never sets CR0 bits 8-9 to 01. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Joe Monk

Re: Architectural Level Sets

IBM's brief flirtation with extended real addressing (26-bit addressing) in the IBM 3033, 3081, and a few models thereafter was quirky. IBM pretty quickly dropped extended real addressing once XA debuted. Back to Tony's original question, I think an "Architectural Level Set" is difficult to

Re: setting up CSSMTP to use TLS-SSL

Brian Westerman asked: >So does this all mean that (currently) no one on the list >uses TLS-SSL to forward their mail from CSSMTP to the >target mail server? I see "Yes, we use TLS" replies have overtaken this question. That said, I assume you wouldn't want and don't expect anyone in an open

Re: Architectural Level Sets

I believe that IBM guaranties that '0'X will never be a valid opcode. MVCIN is older than the 4341; it was an RPQ on the S/360 and S/370, quite common in Israel. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:35:05 + , Robert Prins wrote: >>... >> I just updated ISRPXASM to add about 70 new COBOL and 140 new PL/I keywords. >> You can grab FILE967 at www.cbttape.org.  Lots of other goodies in there. > >You missed out on the most mysterious PL/I keyword, "ELDERON" (no

Re: PL/I RFE to vote for (or not)

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:17:21 + , Robert Prins wrote: >quotient = QUOTREM(dividend, divisor, remainder), > >With quotient and remainder generated in one go by the execution of a DP >instruction (and probably/possibly/maybe/likely also by the various other >divide instructions) >

Re: PL/I RFE to vote for (or not)

On 2020-09-02 17:02, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:17:21 + , Robert Prins wrote: quotient = QUOTREM(dividend, divisor, remainder), With quotient and remainder generated in one go by the execution of a DP instruction (and probably/possibly/maybe/likely also by the

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

PL/I has no reserved words, so IBM can extend the language without breaking existing code. However, it is bad form to knowingly use a keyword as a procedure, label or variable name. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On 9/2/2020 12:35 PM, Robert Prins wrote: On 2020-09-02 16:16, Tom Conley wrote: On 9/2/2020 11:30 AM, David Crayford wrote: On 2020-09-03 1:47 AM, Robert Prins wrote: This seems to go hand-in-hand with HILITE.  Does it understand that PL/I has no reserved words and that any of the above

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On 9/2/2020 11:30 AM, David Crayford wrote: On 2020-09-03 1:47 AM, Robert Prins wrote: This seems to go hand-in-hand with HILITE.  Does it understand that PL/I has no reserved words and that any of the above might be merely identifiers? ISPF HILITE is just that highlight. It do\es not do any

PL/I RFE to vote for (or not)

quotient = QUOTREM(dividend, divisor, remainder), With quotient and remainder generated in one go by the execution of a DP instruction (and probably/possibly/maybe/likely also by the various other divide instructions) https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=145001

Re: About Enterprise PL/I - barking (up the wrong tree?)

Robert Prins wrote: Dear all, A few days ago I posted the following to , addressed specifically to Peter Elderon: "And the corresponding PL/I source is ?" Note for what follows: PL/I has a truckload of builtin functions to work with dates and times, but none of them

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On 2020-09-02 16:16, Tom Conley wrote: On 9/2/2020 11:30 AM, David Crayford wrote: On 2020-09-03 1:47 AM, Robert Prins wrote: This seems to go hand-in-hand with HILITE.  Does it understand that PL/I has no reserved words and that any of the above might be merely identifiers? ISPF HILITE is

Re: About Enterprise PL/I - barking (up the wrong tree?)

On 2020-09-02 16:34, Thomas David Rivers wrote: Robert Prins wrote: Dear all, A few days ago I posted the following to , addressed specifically to Peter Elderon: "And the corresponding PL/I source is ?" Note for what follows: PL/I has a truckload of builtin

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:02:51 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >PL/I has no reserved words, so IBM can extend the language without breaking >existing code. However, it is bad form to knowingly use a keyword as a >procedure, label or variable name. > However, if IBM were to extend in that fashion it

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On 2020-09-02 16:16, Tom Conley wrote: On 9/2/2020 11:30 AM, David Crayford wrote: On 2020-09-03 1:47 AM, Robert Prins wrote: This seems to go hand-in-hand with HILITE.  Does it understand that PL/I has no reserved words and that any of the above might be merely identifiers? ISPF HILITE is

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 18:42:19 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> However, if IBM were to extend in that fashion it would be at the >> cost of rendering possibly existing user code "bad form". >No; there's a reason that I wrote "knowingly". You're describing a situation >where the user *doesn't* know

Re: ZCX task monitoring, anyone?

Hi Sean, cAdvisor polls for metrics once a second by default. Though I have not seen such high CPU utilization with the default setting, it is worth to run cAdvisor with a different setting, one that you can define explicitly when you start cAdvisor. I'd recommend that you try a 10s or 15s

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

> However, if IBM were to extend in that fashion it would be at the > cost of rendering possibly existing user code "bad form". No; there's a reason that I wrote "knowingly". You're describing a situation where the user *doesn't* know that IBM will be adding that keyword. -- Shmuel (Seymour

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:04:43 -0400, Tom Conley wrote: >... >I'm only adding documented keywords. I don't have Enterprise PL/I, so >can you submit an RFE to get these documented? > That should be an RCF on the doc, not an RFE. And I believe IBM honors RCFs with no license required. I

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On 2020-09-02 17:46, Tom Conley wrote: On 9/2/2020 12:35 PM, Robert Prins wrote: On 2020-09-02 16:16, Tom Conley wrote: On 9/2/2020 11:30 AM, David Crayford wrote: On 2020-09-03 1:47 AM, Robert Prins wrote: This seems to go hand-in-hand with HILITE.  Does it understand that PL/I has no

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

Robert, I'm not sure what you've posted here.  ELDERON is likely a reference to Peter Elderon, an Enterprise PL/I developer.  ELDERON, FASTCALL16, and PASCAL16 are not listed in the Enterprise PL/I V5R3 Language Reference. The pasted fragment is a direct cut from a browse of the load

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

Knowingly means knowingly; regardless of the user's sophistication or lack thereof; no reasonable person would expect the user to avoid unknown keywords. OTOH, a polite heads up would be reasonable. However, it might be nice to have a compiler option to flag overloading of keywords. I wouldn't

Re: TSO PHRASE command HELP entry missing

I would agree that TSO Help is less than helpful in its current state, especially living within the ISPF IDE environment. There are two available free solutions for this available on the CBT Tape (www.cbttape.org) and if you're willing to pay for it you can get MVS/QuickRef from ChicagoSoft

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:47:05 +, Robert Prins wrote: >More than 20 years ago I wrote an edit macro "EDOEND", that lets me exclude, in >PL/I source, all statements other than > >'PACKAGE', >'PROC', >'PROCEDURE', >'DO', >'BEGIN', >'SELECT', and >'END' > This seems to go hand-in-hand with HILITE.

Re: Architectural Level Sets

Peter, thanks. But, my original question was not worded well. What I am really looking for is: What major feature change prevented older operating system versions from running on the newer box. For example: What changed on the z990 that forced the use of the z990 compatability feature? I

Re: Architectural Level Sets

I think the z990 was also the first machine to mandate the use of LPARs. Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: 02 September 2020 15:37 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Architectural Level Sets W dniu

Re: setting up CSSMTP to use TLS-SSL

*Client* certificate? I think you mean Server Certificate. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian Westerman Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:34 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: setting up CSSMTP

Re: Architectural Level Sets

Look at p. D-4 in the -0 edition. I don't know which, if either, to believe. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Joe Monk Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 6:17 AM To:

Re: Old OS V2.3.0 PL/I Manuals in BookMaster format

Hi Robert, I'm looking around and not having any luck. I suggest that you ask the team directly via KC, in case somebody there has the old files somewhere. To do so, go into the KC section for the most recent version of the product (

Re: Architectural Level Sets

W dniu 02.09.2020 o 15:08, Tony Thigpen pisze: Peter, thanks. But, my original question was not worded well. What I am really looking for is: What major feature change prevented older operating system versions from running on the newer box. For example: What changed on the z990 that forced

Re: sort join keys not correctly working

Thanks a Lot Kolusu for the information . Regards Ron T -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Architectural Level Sets

What CPU's were involved with each level, and what was the real underlying item changed on the CPU that forced a new level? No one seems to have answered Tony's question. For z/OS V2R1 and onward, the information can be found in z/OS Planning for Installation -> Preparing the target system

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On 2020-09-02 12:46, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:47:05 +, Robert Prins wrote: More than 20 years ago I wrote an edit macro "EDOEND", that lets me exclude, in PL/I source, all statements other than 'PACKAGE', 'PROC', 'PROCEDURE', 'DO', 'BEGIN', 'SELECT', and 'END' This

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On 2020-09-03 1:47 AM, Robert Prins wrote: This seems to go hand-in-hand with HILITE.  Does it understand that PL/I has no reserved words and that any of the above might be merely identifiers? ISPF HILITE is just that highlight. It do\es not do any parsing of the language. I think EDOEND

Re: PL/I RFE to vote for (or not)

There is one advantage to COBOL's rather archaic arithmetic statements: DIVIDE dividend BY divisor GIVING quotient REMAINDER remain DIVIDE divisor INTO dividend GIVING quotient REMAINDER remain From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Robert

Re: A little magic from Doug Nadel

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 17:35, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Knowingly means knowingly; regardless of the user's sophistication or lack > thereof; no reasonable person would expect the user to avoid unknown > keywords. OTOH, a polite heads up would be reasonable. > > However, it might be nice to have

Re: PL/I RFE to vote for (or not)

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:39:27 +, Robert Prins wrote: > >>> quotient = QUOTREM(dividend, divisor, remainder), >>> >>> With quotient and remainder generated in one go by the execution of a DP >>> instruction (and probably/possibly/maybe/likely also by the various other >>> divide instructions)

New Redbook: "IBM z/OS Container Extensions Use Cases"

It's still in draft form at the moment: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/Redbooks.nsf/RedpieceAbstracts/sg248471.html - - - - - - - - - - Timothy Sipples I.T. Architect Executive Digital Asset & Other Industry Solutions IBM Z & LinuxONE - - - - - - - - - - E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

Re: setting up CSSMTP to use TLS-SSL

It's from the server box, but they have it marked "client side to use our cert". Brian On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:22:19 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >*Client* certificate? I think you mean Server Certificate. > >Charles > > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

IBM Z Day: September 14-15, 2020

IBM is sponsoring a bigger and grander "IBM Z Day" this year, so big/grand that the live sessions are running for a full 24 hours of binge viewing in multiple tracks, so there's way more than 24 hours of live content to choose from. IBM Z Day is free, and for the first time there are some