> The only thing which might not work would > be something which was CPU speed dependent.
That's not the only thing. A program that relies on getting certain program interrupts might fail. Then there's the ASCII bit, although I would be very surprised if anybody actually used it. There are optional instructions that IBM carried over. There's probably more that I haven't thought of. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of John McKown [john.archie.mck...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: z/OS use of "legacy" programming languages On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:56 AM Joe Monk <joemon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Honestly, this whole discussion is kind of pointless, no? > > z/os IBM/390 IBM/370 IBM/360 all share ... instruction set. While the > newer models all have newer instructions, object code assembled on a 360 is > just as valid today as it was in 1960. > Yeap. IEFBR14 still works! {grin} The only thing which might not work would be something which was CPU speed dependent. And such programs are specifically mentioned in the POPS as "non-conformant" (my word). This generally doesn't mean much, but it can lead to a "race" condition being observed on a faster or slower machine in an improperly coded multitasking environment. Or even an environment which has more or fewer CPs enabled. > > Joe > > -- People in sleeping bags are the soft tacos of the bear world. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
