>I presume the target of Ed's STOSM is in the PSW he's fixing to load. So, >after changing the code to use the STNSM, he'd need to add an OI >PSWMASK,X'03' before the LPSW, as it really sounds like he doesn't want to >run disabled after that.
>Right? Nope. The value placed into "PSW" is the time-of-STNSM PSW mask which would have those bits on. The resulting PSW would have those bits off. So the value in "PSW" is what is wanted with respect to the enablement bits. I will mention that, unless you are returning to your caller by PR or perhaps your RB ends, you might want to avoid using a "model PSW" and instead use "EPSW" in order to make sure that you have all of the current bits that might conceivably apply (now and in the future). You'd still do the STNSM approach because the EPSW-captured PSW might have an in-transit PER bit. Unfortunately EPSW is, I believe, pretty slow. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
