Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-14 Thread Walt Farrell
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:09:08 +0200, Martin Truebner wrote: >Jim, > >>> That's not quite true. << > >I do understand what you said. Would Peters stmt be "full*" true >if a "problem state instructions..." is inserted? > > >* I used "full" to remove/nullify/void/falsify your use of the word >"qu

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-13 Thread Martin Truebner
Jim, >> That's not quite true. << I do understand what you said. Would Peters stmt be "full*" true if a "problem state instructions..." is inserted? * I used "full" to remove/nullify/void/falsify your use of the word "quite". If this is wrong, I blame it on my lack of knowledge of the ameri

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-13 Thread Jim Mulder
Peter Relson/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 10/13/2011 08:08:01 AM: > 10/13/2011 07:35 PM > Subject: > Re: newer opcodes > It is true that all z/OS releases can run on any z/Architecture-capable > machine. > > Peter Relson > z/OS Core Technology Design That's not

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-13 Thread Edward Jaffe
On 10/13/2011 5:27 AM, Martin Truebner wrote: Peter, simple rule of thumb: Talking about simple... would it be too much asking to insert (right behind the note about operation exception when not installed) the corresponding bit in STFLEs answer? I agree. This would be a useful addition to th

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-13 Thread Shane
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:52:31 -0400 Mike Shaw wrote: > We started doing this exact thing in MVS/QuickRef's > Assembler-oriented data base content. It does save time when you > don't have to go hunt down the STFLE bits. A good example of that little "extra" that ISVs (and PCMs in another time) have

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-13 Thread Mike Shaw
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Martin Truebner wrote: > Peter, > > >> simple rule of thumb: > > Talking about simple... would it be too much asking to insert (right > behind the note about operation exception when not installed) the > corresponding bit in STFLEs answer? > > Marty: We started do

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-13 Thread Martin Truebner
Peter, >> simple rule of thumb: Talking about simple... would it be too much asking to insert (right behind the note about operation exception when not installed) the corresponding bit in STFLEs answer? -- Martin Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE more at http://www.pi

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-13 Thread Peter Relson
It is true that all z/OS releases can run on any z/Architecture-capable machine. That leads to a very simple rule of thumb: if the principles of operation shows for an instruction that an operation exception may occur, then you may not use that instruction unless you have determined that the requi

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-13 Thread Martin Trübner
Everything has been said already. >> [Aside: No facility in recent memory has been more liberating to our >> programmers than the relative-immediate facility.] Y E S. -- Martin Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE more at http://www.picapcpu.de

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-12 Thread Ray Mullins
On 2011-10-12 12:22, Edward Jaffe wrote: On 10/12/2011 5:08 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: Our customers base is VSE. We have customers that are running (in production) old levels back as far as VSE 2.1. We have customers running hardware as far back as MP2000 boxes. Until last year, we actually had a

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-12 Thread Edward Jaffe
On 10/12/2011 5:08 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: Our customers base is VSE. We have customers that are running (in production) old levels back as far as VSE 2.1. We have customers running hardware as far back as MP2000 boxes. Until last year, we actually had a VSE 1.4 customer. When you consider the fa

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-12 Thread Tony Thigpen
Our customers base is VSE. We have customers that are running (in production) old levels back as far as VSE 2.1. We have customers running hardware as far back as MP2000 boxes. Until last year, we actually had a VSE 1.4 customer. When you consider the fact that some of our customers are running no

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-12 Thread Peter Relson
>Not evil, just can't use them since the customer may not have the >hardware support. The current program I am working on requires z/VSE 4 >so I was attempting to use some of the halfword-imm stuff. I just picked >the wrong instructions. So, again, back to using old instructions. I'm curious. Are

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-11 Thread John Ehrman
Tony Thigpen noted... > We have the following HLASM installed: > HLASM R5.0 2011(PTF UK31916) Tony, HLASM 5.0 has been off service for over a year; upgrade to HLASM 6.0.

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-11 Thread Tony Thigpen
> And I thought that even rel+imm are evil (at least that was the > impression you left me with after our last conversaation about this > very subject) Not evil, just can't use them since the customer may not have the hardware support. The current program I am working on requires z/VSE 4 so I was

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Trübner
Tony, >> ZS4 does not work on our HLASM. But ZS4 is what you need. THe instructions you cited are all z10 (or more) >> First, what is the correct OPTABLE() setting for these >> instructions? answered >> Second, I thought the halfword-Imm instructions were available all >> the way back to the M

Re: newer opcodes

2011-10-11 Thread DAL POS RAPHAEL
ctobre 2011 12:02 À : ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Objet : newer opcodes I do my major coding on my pc using the Dignus Assembler. I was moving some working source code to z/VM where production assemblies are performed and am having trouble finding the correct optcode table for the following instruction

newer opcodes

2011-10-11 Thread Tony Thigpen
I do my major coding on my pc using the Dignus Assembler. I was moving some working source code to z/VM where production assemblies are performed and am having trouble finding the correct optcode table for the following instructions: CHSI MVHHI CHHSI We have the following HLASM installed: HLASM R