Yeah Gerhard and Gil, Starting writing Assembler on a 360/20,, man 704 days...
Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer [p] 678.266.3399 x304 [m] 609-346-0399 identityforge.com This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately or let us know at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED], and then delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gerhard Postpischil Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:16 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Addressing Scheme with 64 vs 63 bits Paul Gilmartin wrote: > ... and I chose the term simply because I can never > remember which systems number bits left-to-right, and > which right to left, or start with 0, or start with 1. > And I think the IBM 704 didn't even number the sign > bit -- it was simply "S", and didn't (sometimes) > participate in shift instructions. It's simple, the bits on the 360, et seq. are numbered in the same direction as on the 704, etc. And I really missed the instruction to shift only the sign bit from the AC to the MQ. Gerhard Postpischil Bradford, VT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
