On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:33:56 -0600 Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote:
:>On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:39:36 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: :>>Recently, a large U.S. Government customer asked us if our product(s) would :>>still work if the LPA-eligible modules were moved from PLPA to LNKLST. They're :>>running the latest operating system releases (often participating in the ESP :>>process), the latest subsystems and middle-ware, and are so storage constrained :>>at 2G they're scraping the bottom of the barrel! :>>IMHO, there is a lot that can and should be done before we get too worried about :>>whether RMODE(64) executables are necessary. :>Those two statements appear to contradict each other. In any case, :>RMODE(64) executables might avoid much scraping effort. :>If a program runs today in AMODE(64) RMODE(31), would the hypothetical :>effort to convert to RMODE(64) be minimal, or would it be more like :>the evolution of XA, where many things still require RMODE(24)? Obviously there would be a need for a linkage assist routine to invoke AMODE31 routines (unless they return via BSM) and all 4 byte adcons would need to be 8. So, about the same. -- Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
