My *impression* is that the PoOp as we know it is actually a byproduct. There is (I understand) some sort of internal architectural reference that drives the chip validation tests and so forth -- and one of its "potential outputs" is the PoOp as we know it.
That's neither criticizing nor defending the PoOp as we know it. It is still fair to criticize the PoOp even if "it has to be that way because of the way the thing that generates it works." It would be fair then to respond "well don't generate it that way then, or generate some better form in addition." > Perhaps there's someone out there who has the time Well, someone might start with the popular and common instructions and move on from there. With enough work one could create animations: showing how an ICM or a TRT operated, for example. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Melvyn Maltz Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 12:30 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Branch-and-Link nomenclature question Hi Guys, Specifically to Dave Cole's query... >>>(FWIW, I find both books to be abysmal documents!) >>>(There. That ought to create a firestorm!) A few years ago and on this forum I dared to say that the PoO was totally inadequate for the 21st century...an opinion I still hold It did get a 'firestorm' reaction, about evenly distributed between, "it's a bible and cannot be modified" to those agreeing with me Among my suggestions, only applying to instruction descriptions is that... These should be in a separate Manual, one 'page' per instruction, hyperlinks to similar instructions, maybe a tracker saying 'people who looked at AHI also looked at LHI :-)' Perhaps there's someone out there who has the time
