Glen,
I understand the MVCL now. I also understand some of the set up that was
done in CP years ago.
Thank you,
Paul Hanrahan
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>In the olden days, the interval timer at address 80 could
>be updated with an MVC instruction. The new value was
>stored at 84, and and 8 byte MVC move from 80 to 76 would
>update the timer and return the previous value without
>losing any counts.
>
>MVCL would not nec
> In the olden days, the interval timer at address 80 could
> be updated with an MVC instruction. The new value was
> stored at 84, and and 8 byte MVC move from 80 to 76 would
> update the timer and return the previous value without
> losing any counts.
I was never too sure about this. On the 36
Normally, you only need to worry about access due to
other CPU's or channels.
For an interruptible instruction, you also need to worry
about access by other tasks on the same CPU.
In the olden days, the interval timer at address 80 could
be updated with an MVC instruction. The new valu
