subject:"Re\: Assembler question"

In , on 02/16/2009
   at 09:27 PM, Clark Morris  said:

>As I understand it, some operating system upgrades have required
>recompilations.

Possibly, but that's a separate issue from recompilations due to changes
in the architecture.

>I THINK that the B5500/6500/etc. series is now the A series

B6500, yes, but the B5500 is part of a different family with a different
architecture, and it's been dead for decades.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-16 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:52:02 -0500, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>note that in that time-frame, (at least) both Wang and Bull contracted
>for rs/6000 to sell under their own label.
>
Aaah, that fits.  At one time we had a small herd of Bulls, running
BOS/X, which was represented to me as an AIX variant.

-- gil

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-16 Thread Clark Morris

On 16 Feb 2009 14:30:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:

>In , on 02/10/2009
>   at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris  said:
>
>>Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
>>higher level languages (the B5000, B5500, B6500, etc. series machines
>>operating system was written in Algol).  Various upgrades have required
>>recompiles.
>
>The B1700, B2500 and B5000 architectures are dead. I'm not aware of any
>upgrade within the B6500 architecture that required a recompile.

As I understand it, some operating system upgrades have required
recompilations.  This is from reading postings on comp.lang.cobol.  I
THINK that the B5500/6500/etc. series is now the A series and that
this is a characteristic of how they do things. 
>
>And, yes, Ivan had the correct[1] companies for the BUNCH: Burroughs,
>UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data, Honeywell. I believe that the other two
>dwarves[2] were GE and RCA.
>
>[1] Other than capitalization.
>
>[2] IBM and the seven dwarves were not, however, the only companies
>making computers.
> 

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-16 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folkore.computers as well.

bi...@mainstar.com (Bill Fairchild) writes:
> I should have checked Wiki_knows_all first.  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUNCH
>
> But there was a connection between BUNCH and the French Bull.  From
> that wiki article: "In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to
> the French computer company Groupe Bull."

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#9 Assembler Question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#12 Assembler Question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#14 Assembler Question

note that in that time-frame, (at least) both Wang and Bull contracted
for rs/6000 to sell under their own label.

Also the Bull/Honeywell (world) services in Billerica was one of
the early HA/CMP installations ... misc. past posts mentioning ha/cmp
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp

current web site:
http://www.bull.us/bull_services/

-- 
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar70

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

In <1234388827.19101.65.ca...@chuck.duda.com>, on 02/11/2009
   at 04:47 PM, David Andrews  said:

>Was it KRONOS?

That came later. It would have to have been SIPROS or COS. CDC abandoned
SIPROS and COS eventually mutated into SCOPE and KRONOS (I'm not sure of
the spelling.)
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

In <499329a7.4050...@valley.net>, on 02/11/2009
   at 02:40 PM, Gerhard Postpischil  said:

>It depends on your definition of mainframe and compatible. The  CDC 1604
>was an IBM 7094 look-alike,

You know better than that.

>differing primarily in
>using 1's complement arithmetic rather than 2's complement (sic)

Different instruction set, different number of index registers, different
word size, unable to combine index and indirect address, two instructions
per word, different interrupt and I/O system.

>using 1's complement arithmetic rather than 2's complement  (patent
>issues?)

Inheritance from UNIVAC. But the 7094 used sign-magnitude.

--
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see 
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

In <94c476c03bff5e42ac3518fdac9643c4bdcdd49...@hqmail.rocketsoftware.com>,
on 02/11/2009
   at 10:36 AM, Bill Fairchild  said:

>But there was a connection between BUNCH and the French Bull.  From that
>wiki article:  "In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to the
>French computer company Groupe Bull."

There was also a connection to the remaining two seven dwarves, sin
B.U.L.L. sold both GE[3] and RCA boxen under its own name.

[3] Via Honeywell.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

In , on 02/11/2009
   at 10:05 AM, "(IBM Mainframe Discussion List)" 
said:

>I thought that the "C" in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines  Bull. 

No; B.U.L.L. was a minor player at the time.

>CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not
>central processors.

Sic transit gloria mundi. There was a time when CDC owned the high-end
market.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

In , on 02/10/2009
   at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris  said:

>Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
>higher level languages (the B5000, B5500, B6500, etc. series machines
>operating system was written in Algol).  Various upgrades have required
>recompiles.

The B1700, B2500 and B5000 architectures are dead. I'm not aware of any
upgrade within the B6500 architecture that required a recompile.

And, yes, Ivan had the correct[1] companies for the BUNCH: Burroughs,
UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data, Honeywell. I believe that the other two
dwarves[2] were GE and RCA.

[1] Other than capitalization.

[2] IBM and the seven dwarves were not, however, the only companies
making computers.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

In <4990bad6.50...@vmfacility.fr>, on 02/10/2009
   at 12:23 AM, Ivan Warren  said:

>Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
>programs written 45 years ago !

Would you settle for three? One from column BULL and two from column
Unisys.


In <4990c212.7040...@vmfacility.fr>, on 02/10/2009
   at 12:53 AM, Ivan Warren  said:

>And I still use 'BALR' because most of my work still involves 24
>AMODE/RMODE code ;)
 
That's a non sequitor; BAS and BASR work fine in 24-bit mode. Did you mean
that most of your work involves code that relies of the PM and ILC being
in the return register?

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

In <45d79eacefba9b428e3d400e924d36b9019d0...@iwdubcormsg007.sci.local>, on
02/09/2009
   at 09:15 PM, "Thompson, Steve"  said:

>Is there any package - Besides Ada Lovelace's running on Babbage machine
>- that can run today on a +45 Year old machine :P

Yes.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:40:23 -0500, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
>
>It depends on your definition of mainframe and compatible. The
>CDC 1604 was an IBM 7094 look-alike, differing primarily in
>using 1's complement arithmetic rather than 2's complement
>(patent issues?).
>
Just to clarify (you didn't say either way), the 7094 did not
use 2's complement arithmetic.

I assumed 1's complement was motivated by the desire to overload
boolean complement with arithmetic complement.

-- gil

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Bill Planer

Err, they were really very different.  The 709x had a 36-bit word, the 1604
a 48-bit word.  The instructions sets were totally different.  The 1604
packed two 24-bit instructions into each word.  I learned computing on a CDC
3600, which was an upwardly compatible successor to the 1604.

"Gerhard Postpischil"  wrote in message
news:<499329a7.4050...@valley.net>...
> Ted MacNEIL wrote:
> > Yes, they made processors; just not IBM-Compatable.
> 
> It depends on your definition of mainframe and compatible. The
> CDC 1604 was an IBM 7094 look-alike, differing primarily in 
> using 1's complement arithmetic rather than 2's complement 
> (patent issues?).
> 
> 
> Gerhard Postpischil
> Bradford, VT
> 
> --
> 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

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Bill Planer

Before IBM makes a hardware change that impacts the performance of BAL/BALR,
perhaps they should scrape their macros clean of these instructions.  I just
assembled an exit that uses the RACROUTE macro, and it still uses BALR (z/OS
1.9).

"Edward Jaffe"  wrote in message
news:<4990c116.5080...@phoenixsoftware.com>...
> Don Russell wrote:
> > I agree. I'm not advocating that BAL/BALR be dropped from the 
> > instruction set. I'm advocating that people stop using them in 
> > new/updated code.
> >   
> 
> IBM is scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for ways to improve
> performance. One way would be to offload processing for older, redundant 
> instructions or functions to millicode.
> 
> Indeed, there was even some talk a while ago about possibly converting
> BALR (specifically the parts of it that set the upper byte in 24-bit 
> mode) to millicode in order to save some System z chip "real estate".
> 
> I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few
> years ago, I still used it on occasion to "sense" the current AMODE.
> 
> --
> Edward E Jaffe
> Phoenix Software International, Inc
> 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
> Los Angeles, CA 90045
> 310-338-0400 x318
> edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
> http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
> 
> --
> 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

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Patrick O'Keefe

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:21:16 -0800, Scott Ford 
 wrote:

>...Control Data Corporation was CDC 
>...

>>I don't know what the "C" was for, but CDC ...

Uh, I meant the C in BUNCH, not the Cs in CDC, but I can see
how that might not have been completely clear.  I guess.

Pat O'Keefe

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Scott Ford

Control Data Corporation was CDC 
 
Scott J Ford

Pat,

Control Data Corporation was CDC 
 
Scott J Ford
 





From: Patrick O'Keefe 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:32:36 PM
Subject: Re: Assembler Question

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:05:27 EST, IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
 wrote:

>...
>I thought that the "C" in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines  Bull.  
>CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but 
>not  central processors.
>...

I don't know what the "C" was for, but CDC definitely made 
computers in the 1960s.  There was a least a "6000 series".
The University of Washington had a CDC 6400 in the late '60s
as I recall.

Pat O'Keefe 

--
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





--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.foklore.computers as well.

patrick.oke...@wamu.net (Patrick O'Keefe) writes:
> I don't know what the "C" was for, but CDC definitely made 
> computers in the 1960s.  There was a least a "6000 series".
> The University of Washington had a CDC 6400 in the late '60s
> as I recall.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#9 Assembler Question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#12 Assembler Question

control data corporation ...

there is folklore in the late 60s, about the cdc 6600 at berkeley having
a thermal problem a little after 10am tuesday mornings (???) and
shutting down.  After this happened some number of times ... they
basically isolated it to low water pressure to the datacenter cooling
system. Eventually identified: 1) tuesday(?) morning was when the grass
was being watered and 2) 10am(?) was class break ... with lots of
students heading to rest rooms & flushing. The combination was enough to
drop water pressue to datacenter cooling.

recent posts in related thread about liqued cooling:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#46 Z11 - Water cooling?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#77 Z11 - Water cooling?

note ... one of the litigation settlements was SBC (service bureau
corporation) going to CDC (there was also some number of employees that
filed legal actions about their change employments) ...  also mentioned
in CDC wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Data_Corporation

from above:

In the meantime, IBM announced a new version of the famed System/360, the
Model 92, which would be just as fast as CDC's 6600. This machine did
not exist, but its nonexistence did not stop sales of the 6600 from
drying up, while people waited for the release of the Model 92. Norris
did not take this tactic, dubbed as fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD),
lying down, and in an antitrust suit against IBM a year later, he won
over 600 million dollars. He also picked up IBM's subsidiary Service
Bureau Corporation (SBC), which ran computer processing for other
corporations on its own computers. SBC fit nicely into CDC's existing
service bureau offerings.

... snip ...

during the morph from cp67 to vm370 ... there was first the transition
where the cp67 group split off from the science center ... and took
over the boston programming center on the 3rd flr of 545 tech sq
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

as the group outgrew the 3rd flr ... they moved out to the (vacant) SBC
bldg. in burlington mall.

They were there until a little after future system project being killed
http://www.garilc.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys

during the Future System phase ... lots of 370 product activity was
neglected (since FS was targeted as complelely replacing 370 ... in much
the same way that 360 had obsoleted previous computer generations). With
the death of FS ... there was a mad rush to get stuff back into the 370
product lines ... including a crash program for 370-xa. POK made the
business case that in order to make the mvs/xa product schedule ... they
needed all the people in the vm370 group ... shutdown burlington mall
location, move all the people to POK (and kill off the vm370 product).

Endicott eventually made the case to pick up the vm370 product mission
(but had to reconstitute a group from scratch).

for additional product drift ... the pre-occupation with Future System
... and neglecting 370 products ... contributed to clone processors in
getting market foothold ... slightly interesting, since Future System
was largely motivated as a countermeasure to clone controllers.

-- 
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar70

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread David Andrews

On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:50 -0500, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
> I remember it as CYPROS

Was it KRONOS?  Think PLATO used to run on that, too.  (But we digress!)

-- 
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
david.andr...@duda.com

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Patrick O'Keefe

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:05:27 EST, IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
 wrote:

>...
>I thought that the "C" in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines  Bull.  
>CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but 
>not  central processors.
>...

I don't know what the "C" was for, but CDC definitely made 
computers in the 1960s.  There was a least a "6000 series".
The University of Washington had a CDC 6400 in the late '60s
as I recall.

Pat O'Keefe 

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.

peter.far...@broadridge.com (Farley, Peter x23353) writes:
> CDC certainly made processors.  DOD used CDC 6600's extensively for
> "defense" planning in the late 60's and 70's, as they were the fastest
> numerical/mathematical machines of their era.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#9 Assembler Question

there are some old references about cray (and thornton) doing cdc 66000
... and then Cray left and formed Cray computer ... and Thornton left
and formed Network Systems Corporation. NSC was eventually bought
by STK ... which was subsequently acquired by SUN.

some past posts referencing my high-speed data transport (HSDT) project
where we used some number of NSC HYPERChannel boxes:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt

some part of 6600 past thread in a.f.c (with some references):
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#73 Remembering the CDC 6600

6600 wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600

"Parallel operation in the Control Data 6600" (by Thornton)
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gbell/Computer_Structures__Readings_and_Examples/0509.htm

scan of Thornton's 6600 document on bitsave.org:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/cdc/6x00/thornton_6600_paper.pdf

some specific posts mentioning Thornton:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#13 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine 
was it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005k.html#15 3705
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005m.html#49 IBM's mini computers--lack thereof
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005r.html#14 Intel strikes back with a parallel 
x86 design
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005u.html#22 Channel Distances
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#37 Is SUN going to become x86'ed ??
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#38 Welcome to Rain Matrix: The Cloud 
Computing Network

-- 
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar70

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Gerhard Postpischil


Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

They had a really crappy OS (if you could even call it that), but they
excelled at what they were designed to do.


Which one did you think was crappy?  I ran on the CDC 6600 at 
ESSA, and about halfway through the contract they switched 
systems. (I remember it as CYPROS, but couldn't find any google 
or wikipedia references to it). I fondly remember the first 
version, that crashed whenever the printer ran out of paper.



Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Gerhard Postpischil


Ted MacNEIL wrote:

Yes, they made processors; just not IBM-Compatable.


It depends on your definition of mainframe and compatible. The 
CDC 1604 was an IBM 7094 look-alike, differing primarily in 
using 1's complement arithmetic rather than 2's complement 
(patent issues?).



Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Scott Ford

Wasn't Bull a service company ? I have been around computer 
Bill,

Wasn't Bull a service company ? I have been around computer service companies 
since I was a kid, Dad worked and retired from Unisys after 37 yrs, so a lot of 
these names are familiar.


Regards, 
Scott J Ford
www.identityforge.com
 





From: Bill Fairchild 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:36:49 AM
Subject: Re: Assembler Question

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of 
Ed Finnell
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:24 AM
>>
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6000_series_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6000_series) 

I should have checked Wiki_knows_all first.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUNCH

But there was a connection between BUNCH and the French Bull.  From that wiki 
article:  "In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to the French 
computer company Groupe Bull."

Ah, my synapses aren't what they use to be.

Bill Fairchild
Rocket Software

--
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





--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.

eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) writes:
> I believe they stopped after 3350-compatible drives.  We were one of
> the last users in the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario Government) to
> migrate to 3380's.

> And, CDC didn't even participate in the RFP.
> It was just Amdahl, STK (as it was called back then), NAS & IBM.

there is the folklore about 200(?) or so disk engineers leaving San Jose
disk division over a period of time ... lots of going to Memorox to do
plug-compatible disk drives ... but some number of them going to other
places like CDC.

in the late 70s I was over in bldg. 28 ... working on various things
... like original relational/sql implementation ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr

but they would also let me play disk engineer over in bldg. 14&15.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#disk

I was getting ask to participat in some number of high level discussions
... including conferences with channel engineers in POK. I aksed why and
was told that those activities had previously been handled by various
senior engineers ... but so many had left over the previous ten yrs.

plug-compatible controllers & devices has been given as major motivation
for the Future System effort in the early 70s.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys

couple old posts with various quotes/reference about FS
motivation/activity:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#33
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#17

I was somewhat involved in clone controllers as undergraduate in the
60s. I tried to get the 2702 communications controller to do something
... which it could almost, only (i.e. NOT) do. This was some of the
motivation behind the university starting a clone controller project
using an Interdata/3; reverse engineering the 360 channel interface,
building channel interface board for the Interdata/3, and programming
the Interdata/3 to emulate 2702 (and do some additional stuff). This was
marketed by Interdata ... and then later when Perkin-Elmer bought
Interdata, marketed under the Perkin-Elmer name.

One of the big issues for 3370s & 3380s were new kind of (thin-film)
disk head (and possibly drop off in plug-compatible compitition
... although there was also pickup in disk market in other places
... like workstation and PCs).

Past posts mentioning "air-bearing" simulation as part of designing
thin-film/floating heads:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#39 195 was: Computer Typesetting Was: 
Movies with source code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005o.html#44 Intel engineer discusses their 
dual-core design
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006c.html#6 IBM 610 workstation computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006d.html#0 IBM 610 workstation computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006d.html#14 IBM 610 workstation computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006t.html#41 The Future of CPUs: What's After 
Multi-Core?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006u.html#18 Why so little parallelism?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006x.html#27 The Future of CPUs: What's After 
Multi-Core?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006x.html#31 The Future of CPUs: What's After 
Multi-Core?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#43 FBA rant
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#46 The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#64 Disc Drives
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#52 Drums: Memory or Peripheral?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008k.html#77 Disk drive improvements
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008l.html#60 recent mentions of 40+ yr old 
technology

-- 
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar70

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

>But there was a connection between BUNCH and the French Bull.  From that wiki 
>article:  "In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to the French 
>computer company Groupe Bull."

I seem to remember, it was a lot earlier than that (circa 1978).
Of course, I don't know which to trust the least -- my memory, or WIKI. (8-{]}

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

>I thought that the "C" in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines  Bull.

No, back then Honeywell was the H, until Bull bought them in the late 1970's.
I was still in University, then.
We had a Level 66, runing GCOS8.
The reps from Bull came in and changed all the labels on the machine, after the 
acquisition.

I used a Control Data Corporation (CDC), CYBER 6000, in high school taking a 
night school course run by McMaster University in 1972.

It ran FORTRAN in batch, and BASIC online.

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

>> CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not
> central processors.

>Oh m'gosh, yes.  Look up Seymour Cray!

I think the key was 'mainframe-compatible'.
But, back then, everybody was calling their equipment 'mainframes'.

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

>> CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not  
> central processors.

I believe they stopped after 3350-compatible drives.
We were one of the last users in the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario Government) 
to migrate to 3380's.
And, CDC didn't even participate in the RFP.
It was just Amdahl, STK (as it was called back then), NAS & IBM.

>I thought the C was CDC. They most certainly made processors.

Yes, they made processors; just not IBM-Compatable.

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Bill Fairchild

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of 
Ed Finnell
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:24 AM
>>
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6000_series_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6000_series) 

I should have checked Wiki_knows_all first.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUNCH

But there was a connection between BUNCH and the French Bull.  From that wiki 
article:  "In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to the French 
computer company Groupe Bull."

Ah, my synapses aren't what they use to be.

Bill Fairchild
Rocket Software

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Farley, Peter x23353

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of (IBM Mainframe Discussion List)
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:05 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Assembler Question
> 
> In a message dated 2/10/2009 11:25:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca writes:
> 
> >(BUNCH - Burroughs Univac Ncr Cdc Honeywell -- if I remember
correctly).
> 
> I thought that the "C" in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines  Bull.  CDC
> made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not
central
> processors.

CDC certainly made processors.  DOD used CDC 6600's extensively for
"defense" planning in the late 60's and 70's, as they were the fastest
numerical/mathematical machines of their era.

They had a really crappy OS (if you could even call it that), but they
excelled at what they were designed to do.

Peter
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of 
the 
message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments from your system.

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Ed Finnell

 
In a message dated 2/11/2009 9:06:17 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
dasdbi...@aol.com writes:

I thought that the "C" in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines   Bull.  CDC made 
mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think,  but not  central 
processors.


>>
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6000_series_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6000_series) 



Never laid hands on one, but did lots of Conversions(mostly  Fortran) for 
DOE.  



**The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards.  AOL Music takes you there. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi0002)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread David Andrews

On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 10:05 -0500, (IBM Mainframe Discussion List)
wrote:
> CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not
> central processors.

Oh m'gosh, yes.  Look up Seymour Cray!

-- 
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
david.andr...@duda.com

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread Bob Shannon

> CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not  
> central processors.

I thought the C was CDC. They most certainly made processors.

Bob Shannon

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-11 Thread (IBM Mainframe Discussion List)

 
 
In a message dated 2/10/2009 11:25:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca writes:

>(BUNCH - Burroughs Univac Ncr Cdc Honeywell -- if I remember  correctly).



I thought that the "C" in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines  Bull.  CDC made 
mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but not  central processors.
 
Bill  Fairchild
Rocket Software
**The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards.  AOL Music takes you there. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi0002)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24

2009-02-11 Thread Scott Ford

I am the started writing Assembler on a 360/20I have seen
Gil --

I am the started writing Assembler on a 360/20I have seen BASR and know how 
it is used but dont use it
much at all.
 
Scott J Ford
www.identityforge.com
 





From: Gilbert Saint-Flour 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:24:21 AM
Subject: Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24

On Tuesday 10 February 2009 15:50, Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote:

> And, almost always, I code BAL/BALR and rarely BAS/BASR.
> I started coding assembler on a 360/20 in 1972, so call that an old habit.

The 360/20 was a 16-bit machine which had BAS/BASR, which I used a lot at the 
time.  The 360/20 did not have BAL/BALR which I started to use on 370 systems 
in 1975.  IIRC, early 370 systems didn't have BAS/BASR, which were added to 
XA systems.  Sorry for the error. 

-- 
Gilbert Saint-Flour
GSF Software
http://gsf-soft.com/

--
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





--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-10 Thread Clark Morris

On 9 Feb 2009 15:33:19 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:

>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
>Behalf Of Ivan Warren
>Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:23 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>Subject: Re: Assembler Question
>
>Hopefully..
>
>BAL/BALR will still be around.. It's been around since S/360 and it's
>here to stay.
>
>That's the power of the architecture..
>
>Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
>programs written 45 years ago !
>
>
>
>Discussed this very thing with a person who used to work on Burroughs
>systems.
>
>Seems that UNISYS systems that are patterned after the Burroughs
>machines are able to run programs that old. Not sure about the UNIVAC
>side of the house. 
>
>Seems that the BUNCH had a common idea at some point of protecting the
>investment that their clients made in software.

Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000, B5500, B6500, etc. series machines
operating system was written in Algol).  Various upgrades have
required recompiles.  On the other hand, COBOL 74 is still supported
for that series of machines which I believe is now the A series.
>
>(BUNCH - Burroughs Univac Ncr Cdc Honeywell -- if I remember correctly).
>
>Regards,
>Steve Thompson
>
>PS. BAS and BASR were implemented on the S/360-20. Because it only had
>16 bit registers, not the full 32 of its bigger siblings.
>
>-- Opinions posted by this poster may not be those of poster's employer.

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-10 Thread Farley, Peter x23353

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:22 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Assembler Question
> 
> Edward Jaffe wrote:
> > ... My programs use base registers only for constants, literals and
> > working storage--not code.
> 
> For more information on this topic, see
> http://ew.share.org/proceedingmod/abstract.cfm?abstract_id=17758

Thanks Ed, that is a very helpful presentation.

Peter

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of 
the 
message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments from your system.

--
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

Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24

2009-02-10 Thread Thomas H Puddicombe

360/20 (vintage 1970) didn't have BAL/BALR instructions, it had BAS/BASR.

Tom Puddicombe
Mainframe Performance & Capacity Planning
CSC

71 Deerfield Rd, Meriden, CT 06450
ITIS | (860) 428-3252 | tpudd...@csc.com | www.csc.com

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. 
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to 
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement 
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such 
purpose.

Gilbert Saint-Flour  
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
02/10/2009 09:49 AM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List 

To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc

Subject
Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24

LINKINST was added to the CALL macro in 1997 (OS/390 R2). 
Frankly, I don't remember ever noticing it, let alone using it.

What I remember is what I went through when I started to work in XA in 
1988/1989 and ESA in 1991.  I started to modify programs which were all 
AMODE=24 to switch to AMODE=31, like I saw the SDSF code do in ISFSRC. 
A few months later, I realised that it would be better to write AMODE=ANY 
code 
which CALLs AMODE=ANY sub-routines which switch to AMODE=24 when they have 
to 
(mostly GET/PUT, READ/WRITE), and made appropriate changes in sub-routines 

for them to work in MVS/370, MVS/XA and MVS/ESA.  So, for the last 20 
years, 
I used this type of approach in most of my assembler code and don't care 
about what's available to switch AMODE in MVS, VM and VSE. 

In 2003, I realised that it was unlikely that my programs would ever have 
to 
work in a system older than DFSMS/MVS, so I removed all the AMODE=24 code 
from GET/PUT, READ/WRITE sub-routines. 

I don't think I ever used SYSSTATE or made much difference between BASR 
and 
BALR and can't imagine why someone would worry about this in 2009. 
The only thing I remember is the problem about 24-bit address constants in 

various control-blocks (DCB, RB, SWA, ...) which many of my programs and 
sub-routines have to deal with. 

And, almost always, I code BAL/BALR and rarely BAS/BASR. 
I started coding assembler on a 360/20 in 1972, so call that an old habit.

-- 
 Gilbert Saint-Flour
 GSF Software
 http://gsf-soft.com/

On Tuesday 10 February 2009 14:53, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
>> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:50 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>> Subject: Re: Assembler Question
> 
>> I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few
>> years ago, I still used it on occasion to "sense" the current AMODE.
> 
> Indeed, and do you then always use the LINKINST=BASR keyword on the CALL
> macro to force the macro not to use BALR?  What do you do about the WTO
> macro which always generates a BAL around the message text? Etc., etc.,
> pick your system macro and observe the BAL/R's and other ancient
> instructions all over the place.
> 
> 
> I am occasionally somewhat peeved at IBM for failing to provide 
different,
> non-24-bit macro expansions when the programmer goes to the trouble of
> coding SYSSTATE ARCHLVL=2 (or any other mechanism they might care 
> to invent). 
> 
> Even GET/PUT could use BASR, AFAIK, unless they too are using the BALR
> to detect AMODE.  Which ought to be documented, if true.
> 

--
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

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-10 Thread Edward Jaffe


Edward Jaffe wrote:
... My programs use base registers only for constants, literals and 
working storage--not code.


For more information on this topic, see 
http://ew.share.org/proceedingmod/abstract.cfm?abstract_id=17758


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-10 Thread Edward Jaffe

Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question

I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few
years ago, I still used it on occasion to "sense" the current AMODE.

Indeed, and do you then always use the LINKINST=BASR keyword on the CALL
macro to force the macro not to use BALR?

I don't count macro-generated BALRs among the BALRs I've coded. A macro 
interface is decided by its service provider. My macros use BASR or BASSM.

What do you do about the WTO
macro which always generates a BAL around the message text? Etc., etc.,
pick your system macro and observe the BAL/R's and other ancient
instructions all over the place.

I assemble with SYSSTATE ARCHLVL=1 or SYSSTATE ARCHLVL=2. I do not 
assemble with SYSSTATE ARCHLVL=0. My programs use base registers only 
for constants, literals and working storage--not code. I would know 
right away if a macro generated a B or BAL. FYI, on my system WTO 
generates this:

34384  WTO   'I am here'
34386+ CNOP  0,4
34387+ BRAS  1,IHB4648A   BRANCH AROUND MESSAGE
34388+ DCAL2(13)  TEXT LENGTH
34389+ DCB''  MCSFLAGS
34390+ DCC'I am here' MESSAGE TEXT
34391+IHB4648A DS0H
34392+ SVC   35   ISSUE SVC 35

For more ancient macros, I often use IEABRCX PUSH/POP to change B and 
BAL/BAS to J and JAS just for the "problem" macro. For example:

IEABRCX ENABLEEnable B-to-J conversion
PUSH  ACONTROLSave ACONTROL status
ACONTROL FLAG(NOSUBSTR)   Don't flag substring errors
CALLTSSR EP=IKJPARS,  Invoke TSO/E parse routine
  MF=(E,PPL)  (same)
POP   ACONTROLRestore ACONTROL status
IEABRCX DISABLE   Disable B-to-J conversion

--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

--
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

Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24

2009-02-10 Thread Gilbert Saint-Flour

On Tuesday 10 February 2009 15:50, Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote:

> And, almost always, I code BAL/BALR and rarely BAS/BASR.
> I started coding assembler on a 360/20 in 1972, so call that an old habit.

The 360/20 was a 16-bit machine which had BAS/BASR, which I used a lot at the 
time.  The 360/20 did not have BAL/BALR which I started to use on 370 systems 
in 1975.  IIRC, early 370 systems didn't have BAS/BASR, which were added to 
XA systems.  Sorry for the error. 

-- 
 Gilbert Saint-Flour
 GSF Software
 http://gsf-soft.com/

--
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

Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24

2009-02-10 Thread Thompson, Steve

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Gilbert Saint-Flour
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24



And, almost always, I code BAL/BALR and rarely BAS/BASR.  
I started coding assembler on a 360/20 in 1972, so call that an old
habit.



And BAL/BALR were macros that generated BAS/BASR, at least on the
CPS/TPS system I was using.

Regards,
Steve Thompson

-- Opinions expressed by poster may or may not be the opinions of
poster's employer. --

--
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

Re: Assembler Question - AMODE=24

2009-02-10 Thread Gilbert Saint-Flour

LINKINST was added to the CALL macro in 1997 (OS/390 R2).  
Frankly, I don't remember ever noticing it, let alone using it.

What I remember is what I went through when I started to work in XA in 
1988/1989 and ESA in 1991.  I started to modify programs which were all 
AMODE=24 to switch to AMODE=31, like I saw the SDSF code do in ISFSRC.  
A few months later, I realised that it would be better to write AMODE=ANY code 
which CALLs AMODE=ANY sub-routines which switch to AMODE=24 when they have to 
(mostly GET/PUT, READ/WRITE), and made appropriate changes in sub-routines 
for them to work in MVS/370, MVS/XA and MVS/ESA.  So, for the last 20 years, 
I used this type of approach in most of my assembler code and don't care 
about what's available to switch AMODE in MVS, VM and VSE.  

In 2003, I realised that it was unlikely that my programs would ever have to 
work in a system older than DFSMS/MVS, so I removed all the AMODE=24 code 
from GET/PUT, READ/WRITE sub-routines.  

I don't think I ever used SYSSTATE or made much difference between BASR and 
BALR and can't imagine why someone would worry about this in 2009.   
The only thing I remember is the problem about 24-bit address constants in 
various control-blocks (DCB, RB, SWA, ...) which many of my programs and 
sub-routines have to deal with.   

And, almost always, I code BAL/BALR and rarely BAS/BASR.  
I started coding assembler on a 360/20 in 1972, so call that an old habit.

-- 
 Gilbert Saint-Flour
 GSF Software
 http://gsf-soft.com/

On Tuesday 10 February 2009 14:53, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
>> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:50 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>> Subject: Re: Assembler Question
> 
>> I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few
>> years ago, I still used it on occasion to "sense" the current AMODE.
> 
> Indeed, and do you then always use the LINKINST=BASR keyword on the CALL
> macro to force the macro not to use BALR?  What do you do about the WTO
> macro which always generates a BAL around the message text? Etc., etc.,
> pick your system macro and observe the BAL/R's and other ancient
> instructions all over the place.
> 
> 
> I am occasionally somewhat peeved at IBM for failing to provide different,
> non-24-bit macro expansions when the programmer goes to the trouble of
> coding SYSSTATE ARCHLVL=2 (or any other mechanism they might care 
> to invent). 
> 
> Even GET/PUT could use BASR, AFAIK, unless they too are using the BALR
> to detect AMODE.  Which ought to be documented, if true.
> 

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-10 Thread Thomas H Puddicombe

BAS/BASR worked just fine on 360/20 (in 16-bit mode).  Who's living in the 
past?

Tom Puddicombe
Mainframe Performance & Capacity Planning
CSC

71 Deerfield Rd, Meriden, CT 06450
ITIS | (860) 428-3252 | tpudd...@csc.com | www.csc.com

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. 
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to 
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement 
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such 
purpose.

Don Russell  
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
02/09/2009 07:02 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List 

To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc

Subject
Re: Assembler Question

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Ivan Warren  wrote:

>
>>  And I still use 'BALR' because most of my work still involves 24
> AMODE/RMODE code ;)
>

BAS/BASR work fine in 24 bit mode too. Stop living in the past. ;-) (Just
teasing)

Do you use the linkage information in the high byte?

--
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

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-10 Thread Farley, Peter x23353

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:50 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Assembler Question
 
> I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few
> years ago, I still used it on occasion to "sense" the current AMODE.

Indeed, and do you then always use the LINKINST=BASR keyword on the CALL
macro to force the macro not to use BALR?  What do you do about the WTO
macro which always generates a BAL around the message text? Etc., etc.,
pick your system macro and observe the BAL/R's and other ancient
instructions all over the place.


I am occasionally somewhat peeved at IBM for failing to provide
different, non-24-bit macro expansions when the programmer goes to the
trouble of coding SYSSTATE ARCHLVL=2 (or any other mechanism they might
care to invent).

Even GET/PUT could use BASR, AFAIK, unless they too are using the BALR
to detect AMODE.  Which ought to be documented, if true.


Peter
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of 
the 
message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments from your system.


--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-09 Thread Thompson, Steve

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ivan Warren
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question

Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
>
> Babbage's Analytical Engine? 
>

ok.. lemme rephrase this !

Is there any package - Besides Ada Lovelace's running on Babbage machine
- that can run today on a +45 Year old machine :P


That would possibly be MVS 3.8J. I'm not sure if DOS/360 is still
available. The Hercules crowd would know about that.

I think someone still has a S/370 Basic copy of WYLBUR, but I'm not sure
about that either.

The IESRPG for OS/MVT is still available (RPG not RPGII).

Or did I miss what you are getting at still?

Regards,
Steve Thompson

-- Opinions expressed by poster may not reflect poster's employer's
opinions. --

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-09 Thread Steve Comstock


Ivan Warren wrote:

Don Russell wrote:

BAS/BASR work fine in 24 bit mode too. Stop living in the past. ;-) (Just
teasing)

Do you use the linkage information in the high byte?

  

I *HAVE* to live in the past.. S/370 to us is the only option. The
powers that be leave us no choice !

--Ivan

(If you're wondering about the cryptic message above, do not hesitate to
ask me)


Well, I'm curious. Tell me. Off-list if you prefer.



Kind regards,

-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.

303-393-8716
http://www.trainersfriend.com

  z/OS Application development made easier
* Our classes include
   + How things work
   + Programming examples with realistic applications
   + Starter / skeleton code
   + Complete working programs
   + Useful utilities and subroutines
   + Tips and techniques

==> Check out the Trainer's Friend Store to purchase z/OS  <==
==> application developer toolkits. Sample code in four<==
==> programming languages, JCL to Assemble or compile, <==
==> bind and test. <==
==>   http://www.trainersfriend.com/TTFStore/index.html<==

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-09 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:24:12 -0800, Don Russell wrote:
>
>That sounds like the subroutine was trying to be bi-modal, and probably used
>BSM to return. If it were called via BAL, the "addressing mode" bit in the
>return register is not reliable for determining address mode when the caller
>is in 24 bit mode. BAL sets the two high order bits of the regsiter to
>B'10', an ILC of 2. However, if the  caller were in 24 bit mode,  a BSM Rx
>would then incorrectly set the amode to 31 because the high-order bit is on.
>
>i.e. BSM may be used to return from calls via BAS, BASR, BASSM and BALR when
>the caller is in either 24 or 31 bit mode, but from BAL only if the caller
>is in 31 bit mode.
>
I did something like that in the Bad Old Days when access methods needed
to be called in 24-bit mode.  IIRC (vaguely):

Entry Code:

 STM
 BALR  0,0
 LTR   0,0
* if entered in 31-bit mode, BSM to enter 24-bit mode.
* if entered in 24-bit mode, clear the top bit of R14
* in the RSA.

Exit code:

 LM
 LTR   R14,R14
 BNMR  R14
 BSMR  R14

... runs in 24 bit mode on either architecture; never issues a
BSM to cause an instruction exception on 370.

-- gil

--
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

Re: Assembler Question


Gerhard Postpischil wrote:


Babbage's Analytical Engine? 



ok.. lemme rephrase this !

Is there any package - Besides Ada Lovelace's running on Babbage machine
- that can run today on a +45 Year old machine :P

--Ivan

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-09 Thread Edward Jaffe


Ivan Warren wrote:

Edward Jaffe wrote:


I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few 
years ago, I still used it on occasion to "sense" the current AMODE.



And I still use 'BALR' because most of my work still involves 24
AMODE/RMODE code ;)


Why not BASR? You mean you actually *want* to worry about the ILC, 
condition code and program mask in the upper byte?


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-09 Thread Gerhard Postpischil


Ivan Warren wrote:

Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
programs written 45 years ago !


Babbage's Analytical Engine? 


Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT

--
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

Re: Assembler Question


Don Russell wrote:

BAS/BASR work fine in 24 bit mode too. Stop living in the past. ;-) (Just
teasing)

Do you use the linkage information in the high byte?

  

I *HAVE* to live in the past.. S/370 to us is the only option. The
powers that be leave us no choice !

--Ivan

(If you're wondering about the cryptic message above, do not hesitate to
ask me)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Ivan Warren  wrote:

>
>>  And I still use 'BALR' because most of my work still involves 24
> AMODE/RMODE code ;)
>

BAS/BASR work fine in 24 bit mode too. Stop living in the past. ;-) (Just
teasing)

Do you use the linkage information in the high byte?

--
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

Re: Assembler Question


Don Russell wrote:

Well, good luck with your SIO instructions there. ;-)

  
I said BC mode.. Never said Pre-XA ! (all I said is that a z/Arch PSW is 
no longer an EC mode PSW since the E bit in the PSW is 0 in z/Arch (lest 
you want an early Specification Exception to occur))


(However, some virtualization solutions with 370ACCOM will allow SIOs !)

--Ivan

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Ivan Warren  wrote:

> Don Russell wrote:
>
>> BC mode PSWs are no longer supported, so if you are still running ACP 9 or
>> TPF 1.0 you have some old hardware indeed. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
> The fact is..
>
> A z/Arch PSW is a BC mode PSW ;) (E bit is 0 !)

Well, good luck with your SIO instructions there. ;-)

I think your argument is what might be called a "straw man". Pre-ESA the
BC/EC mode was used to change between 360 and 370 mode. 360 mode is gone
now, though I suppose some 360 applications would continue to run. But not
programs that depend on the architecture. SIO vs SSCH for example.

--
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

Re: Assembler Question


Edward Jaffe wrote:


I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few 
years ago, I still used it on occasion to "sense" the current AMODE.



And I still use 'BALR' because most of my work still involves 24
AMODE/RMODE code ;)

--Ivan

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-09 Thread Edward Jaffe


Don Russell wrote:

I agree. I'm not advocating that BAL/BALR be dropped from the instruction
set. I'm advocating that people stop using them in new/updated code.
  


IBM is scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for ways to improve 
performance. One way would be to offload processing for older, redundant 
instructions or functions to millicode.


Indeed, there was even some talk a while ago about possibly converting 
BALR (specifically the parts of it that set the upper byte in 24-bit 
mode) to millicode in order to save some System z chip "real estate".


I haven't coded a BALR for program linkage in decades. Up until a few 
years ago, I still used it on occasion to "sense" the current AMODE.


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

--
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

Re: Assembler Question


Don Russell wrote:

BC mode PSWs are no longer supported, so if you are still running ACP 9 or
TPF 1.0 you have some old hardware indeed. ;-)

  

The fact is..

A z/Arch PSW is a BC mode PSW ;) (E bit is 0 !)

--Ivan

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Ivan Warren  wrote:

> Hopefully..
>
> BAL/BALR will still be around.. It's been around since S/360 and it's
> here to stay.
>
> That's the power of the architecture..
>
> Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
> programs written 45 years ago !
>

I agree. I'm not advocating that BAL/BALR be dropped from the instruction
set. I'm advocating that people stop using them in new/updated code.

BC mode PSWs are no longer supported, so if you are still running ACP 9 or
TPF 1.0 you have some old hardware indeed. ;-)

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-09 Thread Thompson, Steve

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ivan Warren
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question

Hopefully..

BAL/BALR will still be around.. It's been around since S/360 and it's
here to stay.

That's the power of the architecture..

Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
programs written 45 years ago !

Discussed this very thing with a person who used to work on Burroughs
systems.

Seems that UNISYS systems that are patterned after the Burroughs
machines are able to run programs that old. Not sure about the UNIVAC
side of the house. 

Seems that the BUNCH had a common idea at some point of protecting the
investment that their clients made in software.

(BUNCH - Burroughs Univac Ncr Cdc Honeywell -- if I remember correctly).

Regards,
Steve Thompson

PS. BAS and BASR were implemented on the S/360-20. Because it only had
16 bit registers, not the full 32 of its bigger siblings.

-- Opinions posted by this poster may not be those of poster's employer.
--

--
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

Re: Assembler Question


Hopefully..

BAL/BALR will still be around.. It's been around since S/360 and it's
here to stay.

That's the power of the architecture..

Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
programs written 45 years ago !

--Ivan

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM, John McKown  wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:19:53 -0800, Don Russell 
> wrote:
>
> >BAL was  pretty much obsolete when IPM came into existance. Unless of
> course
> >your code had to run on an old box. I have not come across an instance yet
> >when I needed BAL, and often use OPSYN to map BAL/R to BAS/R.
> >If I REALLY need BAL/R, I'll code a  DC X'45' or DC X'05' and add a
> comment
> >saying I really, really need BAL/R here...
> >
>
> I have a very vague memory of one subroutine which was written to be
> sensitive to whether it was invoked via a BAL or a BALR instruction. It
> looked at the ILC in the "link register" and set a flag depending on
> whether
> the ILC was 1 (BALR) or 2 (BAL). Of course, it only worked in AMODE(24), so
> it not really very useful anymore.
>

That sounds like the subroutine was trying to be bi-modal, and probably used
BSM to return. If it were called via BAL, the "addressing mode" bit in the
return register is not reliable for determining address mode when the caller
is in 24 bit mode. BAL sets the two high order bits of the regsiter to
B'10', an ILC of 2. However, if the  caller were in 24 bit mode,  a BSM Rx
would then incorrectly set the amode to 31 because the high-order bit is on.

i.e. BSM may be used to return from calls via BAS, BASR, BASSM and BALR when
the caller is in either 24 or 31 bit mode, but from BAL only if the caller
is in 31 bit mode.

BAL and BALR still work in 31 bit mode, they just behave differently than in
24 bit mode. (which is one of the reasons to stop using it). If all you care
about is the address following BAL/BALR, AMODE doesn't matter. If you care
about the linkage information BAL sets in 24 bit mode, then yes, you need to
update your code to use IPM if you want it to work in 31 (or 64) bit mode.

Don

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

BAL was  pretty much obsolete when IPM came into existance. Unless of course
your code had to run on an old box. I have not come across an instance yet
when I needed BAL, and often use OPSYN to map BAL/R to BAS/R.
If I REALLY need BAL/R, I'll code a  DC X'45' or DC X'05' and add a comment
saying I really, really need BAL/R here...

I would also opt for the immiediate-type instructions instead of referencing
separate storage locations...

i.e. LHI R5,L'BUFFER
or LHI R6,-2

They're faster because they don't require additional memory fetches...  and
they're "nicer" because if you look at a dump or object code, you can see
the operand right in the instruction. In many cases their use eliminates
literals.

I favor the branch-relative instructions (Jxxx mnemonics) where possible to
reduce base register needs (sometimes) and, I suppose they're faster because
they simply add the displacement to the currect PSW without all that adding,
checking if index or base reg are zero etc.

Don

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Ward, Mike S  wrote:

> Hello, all I have a question. I was just looking through the principle
> of ops guide on an instruction I had a question on and noticed a BAS
> instruction. I started reading about it and noticed that it said we
> should use the BAS, BASR type of instructions instead of the BAL and
> BALR types. I won't bore you with the details. My question is: Is there
> a list of recommended instructions that we should be using instead of
> the old instructions we had been using?
>
> ==
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity
> to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error
> please notify the system manager. This message
> contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual
> named. If you are not the named addressee you
> should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the
> sender immediately by e-mail if you
> have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your
> system. If you are not the intended recipient
> you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
> action in reliance on the contents of this
> information is strictly prohibited.
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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

Re: Assembler Question

2009-02-09 Thread John McKown

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:19:53 -0800, Don Russell  wrote:

>BAL was  pretty much obsolete when IPM came into existance. Unless of course
>your code had to run on an old box. I have not come across an instance yet
>when I needed BAL, and often use OPSYN to map BAL/R to BAS/R.
>If I REALLY need BAL/R, I'll code a  DC X'45' or DC X'05' and add a comment
>saying I really, really need BAL/R here...
>

I have a very vague memory of one subroutine which was written to be
sensitive to whether it was invoked via a BAL or a BALR instruction. It
looked at the ILC in the "link register" and set a flag depending on whether
the ILC was 1 (BALR) or 2 (BAL). Of course, it only worked in AMODE(24), so
it not really very useful anymore.

--
John

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-12-21 Thread Paul Gilmartin

In a recent note, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" said:

> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:36:40 -0500
> 
> I've written programs where the lower bound was negative. Yes, the
> code was clearer that way than it would have otherwise been.
> 
Heck, I've written programs in Rexx and awk (others might use perl)
where the subscripts aren't even numeric.  And the code was much
clearer that way than it would have otherwise been.  (Except to
programmers who have never before encountered the construct.)

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
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

Re: [SPAM] Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-12-20 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12/08/2006
   at 10:30 AM, Howard Brazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Sure for non-programmers indices start off with 1 - most of the time.   
>But sometimes they start off with 1001. 

I've written programs where the lower bound was negative. Yes, the
code was clearer that way than it would have otherwise been.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: [SPAM] Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-12-08 Thread Howard Brazee

On 7 Dec 2006 15:57:10 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shmuel
Metz , Seymour J.) wrote:

>>PL/I?
>
>PL/I defaults to a lower bound of 1 but allows the lower bound to be
>negative. Yes, that is useful.

That's one place where the original designers of CoBOL didn't think
far enough.   Sure for non-programmers indices start off with 1 - most
of the time.But sometimes they start off with 1001.A subscript
range would have been nice:

05  MY-ARRAY  OCCURS 1000 FROM 9000 to .

Think of bin numbers or post box addresses.

--
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

[SPAM] Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-12-07 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/21/2006
   at 12:01 AM, "Joel C. Ewing" said:

>CDC6000 Assembler (COMPASS?)

CDC used the name COMPASS for each of its assemblers, including the
one for the 6600. Similarly it recycled the name SCOPE for its
operating systems.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

[SPAM] Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-12-07 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/21/2006
   at 08:35 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:

>PL/I?

PL/I defaults to a lower bound of 1 but allows the lower bound to be
negative. Yes, that is useful.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

[SPAM] Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-12-07 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/22/2006
   at 08:30 AM, "John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-)" said:

>I vaguely remember a QUAL or HEAD pseudo-op. Shmuel, do you have any
>references?

C28-6392-4
IBM 7090/7094 IBSYS Operating System
Version 13
Macro Assembler (MAP) Language

>Or know of any web sites that might have scanned the manual(s)?

I'd suggest that John Ehrman must have a copy, except that you *are*
John Ehrman ;-)

Gerhard? Could you scan your copy?
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-24 Thread john gilmore


Robert A. Rosenberg writes:

I have a vague impression that PL/I goes one step further. When you define 
an array, you define > the lower and upper bounds (l:h) with only upper 
(ie: number of elements) required. Thus you could define a 10 element array 
that goes from element 5 to 14. In addition it does bounds checking (this 
might be optional) with an error being raised if, for example, index<5 or 
index>14 > gets used to  access the above array.


As I noted in an earlier post IBM enterprise PL/I supports

-2^31 <= L <= H <= +2^31 - 1,

i.e.,

-2147483648 <= L <- H <= +2147483647.

Very usefully, it even supports the3 speciual boundary-value case of 
dynamically allocated empty arrays, e.g.,


declare 1 sda based(sdap),
 2 ls binary fixed(31,0),
 2 hs binary fixed(31,0),
 2 fa binary fixed(31,0)
   dimension(l refer(sda.ls):h refer(sda.hs)) ;

declare (l, h) binary fixed(31,0) ;

h = 0b ;
l = 1b ;
allocate sda set(sdap) ;

which sets sdap->sda.ls equal to 1 and sdap->sda.hs equal, to 0 and 
allocates no storage for the array sdap->sda.fa.  (This construct is, for 
example, useful when one wishes to put a replaceable [default] empty table 
in which searches always fail in place.)


The range checking that Rosenberg mentioned is indeed optional.  It is 
enabled by prefixing a single executable statement or a block with


(subscriptrange):

as in

(subscriptrange): m = (l + h)/2 ;

John Gilmore
Ashland, MA 01721-1817
USA

_
Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces 
friends module. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp007001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk


--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-24 Thread Robert A. Rosenberg

At 08:55 -0700 on 11/21/2006, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: 
assembler question (strong typing):



I yield to your expertise.

Could it assume values other than 0 or 1?

Could you mix arrays with different bases in the same program?


I have a vague impression that PL/I goes one step further. When you 
define an array, you define the lower and upper bounds (l:h) with 
only upper (ie: number of elements) required. Thus you could define a 
10 element array that goes from element 5 to 14. In addition it does 
bounds checking (this might be optional) with an error being raised 
if, for example, index<5 or index>14 gets used to  access the above 
array.


--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-22 Thread Craddock, Chris

> > IBM's and STSC's APL had a "system variable" called "quadIO" (cannot
> > display a "quad" on this keyboard) which could be assigned a 0 or 1
to
> > dynamically switch from 0-based to 1-based addressing. Note this
didn't
> > actually change the array, it just changed the coordinate system.

A wonderful language!

> Could it assume values other than 0 or 1?

No. As the name suggested, it simply changed the interpretation of the
origin used for indexing expressions. The only valid values are 0 and 1.
I think []IO was defined to be a Boolean scalar, which would have
limited the assignment values to 0 or 1 anyway. I've long since
forgotten, but I suspect you'd get a domain error if you tried to assign
any other value.

> Could you mix arrays with different bases in the same program?

It had nothing to do with the arrays themselves. They stayed the same.
All that []IO did was change the interpretation of the index expression.
Basically it boiled down to whether you considered the first element in
the array to be index zero or index one.

For any subscripted access to an array, the system would subtract the
value of []IO from each subscript and multiply the result by the element
size to obtain the offset of the element within the array - logically
anyway.

You could switch between 0 and 1 on a statement by statement basis
according to the needs of the application, but that would probably be
considered bad form. Changing []IO could have astonishing results
downstream and upstream, so in most cases where you would want to use a
different value you would either specify []IO as a local variable within
that function, or save/restore its value before/after using a different
index base.

APL is a language where typing was implicit, but could be changed on the
fly and where all variables had names and the names had either global
scope (same value anywhere in the workspace) or local scope (within a
function and anything called by that function.) Once a locally scoped
name was encountered, that definition took precedence until either
another local scope was encountered, or the original function that
declared it to be local, ended.

CC

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-22 Thread John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-)

Sorry, but I forgot to cross-post this to the IBM-MAIN list.
John Ehrman
(-- Referenced Note Follows )
Date: 21 November 2006, 15:27:26 PST
From: John R. Ehrman408-463-3543 T/543-  EHRMAN   at STLVM27
To:   ASSEMBLER-LIST at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Regarding strong typing: there have been many, many extensions
to the conditional assembly language in recent years that make
it easy to implement any strength of strong typing. My macro
tutorial (SHARE 106 in Seattle, session 8167) had several
examples: simple forms that detect probable errors such as a
L of a halfword operand, all the way to "very strong" typing
where you can associate your own types to variables (such as
distance, weight, etc.) in integer or floating point formats,
and also assign units of measure to them (such as feet, miles,
meters, and kilometers; and pounds and kilograms) and then
detect not only inconsistent operations on them, but also convert
units when necessary such as assigning a distance variable in
kilometers to one in feet.

I know of no HLL that can do this. With macros, it's easy.

I vaguely remember a QUAL or HEAD pseudo-op. Shmuel, do you
have any references? Or know of any web sites that might have
scanned the manual(s)?

Regards... John Ehrman

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-22 Thread Steve Comstock


Charles Mills wrote:

Where did John Ehrman write that? I didn't receive the e-mail and it's not
in the archives (that I find). I'd like to read the entire note.


Over on the IBM Assembler-list.

Kind regards,

-Steve Comstock




"Imposing one's perhaps parochial episteme" is a lovely turn of phrase but
it's a straw man. No one has proposed an imposition; I have proposed an
option. It's no more an imposition than any other option that someone may
choose not to use. Nor for that matter have I called its lack a deficiency.
Saying "it would be nice if my wife cooked a steak for dinner" is not to say
that she is deficient until or unless she does so.

I disagree that macros are the answer. Macros are wonderful things and I
have written many of them. However:

- It is hard for me to picture a macro that would solve the problem of
giving a warning if a halfword instruction referenced a field defined as a
fullword -- unless you suppose writing an entire "language" with the macros
(which can be done, and might be a good thing, but it's not the same thing).
- Macros introduce another whole layer of possible errors. A programmer
looking for an error must consider not only whether the source code as
written is in error, but also whether the macro might be in error. (This is
especially true for home-grown macros.)
- Most importantly, macros -- if the program is to be maintained -- must be
enhanced, supported, and documented. Any competent assembler programmer who
may pick up my code knows what an LH does. Will s/he know what MILLSMAC
FUNC=GETSTOR does? Will s/he know how to maintain it or modify it? Far
better to have an optional (and usually silent) enhancement to the
assembler's processing of LH.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of john gilmore
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing)

John Ehrman writes (of strong typing):



I know of no HLL that can do this. With macros, it's easy.




and this of course is the point.

Less time spent lamenting putative, and always controversial, deficiencies 
of the HLASM and more time spent writing macros that embody and implement 
their writer's views of how it should behave differently would be highly 
desirable.


One's own macros may do what one wants them to do witrhout imposing one's 
own perhaps parochial episteme on others.


--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-21 Thread Charles Mills

Where did John Ehrman write that? I didn't receive the e-mail and it's not
in the archives (that I find). I'd like to read the entire note.

"Imposing one's perhaps parochial episteme" is a lovely turn of phrase but
it's a straw man. No one has proposed an imposition; I have proposed an
option. It's no more an imposition than any other option that someone may
choose not to use. Nor for that matter have I called its lack a deficiency.
Saying "it would be nice if my wife cooked a steak for dinner" is not to say
that she is deficient until or unless she does so.

I disagree that macros are the answer. Macros are wonderful things and I
have written many of them. However:

- It is hard for me to picture a macro that would solve the problem of
giving a warning if a halfword instruction referenced a field defined as a
fullword -- unless you suppose writing an entire "language" with the macros
(which can be done, and might be a good thing, but it's not the same thing).
- Macros introduce another whole layer of possible errors. A programmer
looking for an error must consider not only whether the source code as
written is in error, but also whether the macro might be in error. (This is
especially true for home-grown macros.)
- Most importantly, macros -- if the program is to be maintained -- must be
enhanced, supported, and documented. Any competent assembler programmer who
may pick up my code knows what an LH does. Will s/he know what MILLSMAC
FUNC=GETSTOR does? Will s/he know how to maintain it or modify it? Far
better to have an optional (and usually silent) enhancement to the
assembler's processing of LH.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of john gilmore
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing)

John Ehrman writes (of strong typing):

>
>  I know of no HLL that can do this. With macros, it's easy.
>

and this of course is the point.

Less time spent lamenting putative, and always controversial, deficiencies 
of the HLASM and more time spent writing macros that embody and implement 
their writer's views of how it should behave differently would be highly 
desirable.

One's own macros may do what one wants them to do witrhout imposing one's 
own perhaps parochial episteme on others.

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-21 Thread john gilmore


John Ehrman writes (of strong typing):



 I know of no HLL that can do this. With macros, it's easy.



and this of course is the point.

Less time spent lamenting putative, and always controversial, deficiencies 
of the HLASM and more time spent writing macros that embody and implement 
their writer's views of how it should behave differently would be highly 
desirable.


One's own macros may do what one wants them to do witrhout imposing one's 
own perhaps parochial episteme on others.


John Gilmore
Ashland, MA 01721-1817
USA

_
View Athletes Collections with Live Search 
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01


--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Jeffrey D. Smith

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:39 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing)
> 
> Gee, in my impression, and in my expectations, a USING range check is just
> that: a check to make sure that the displacement in within the limits
> specified.
> 
> I would not expect it to have any effect on relative jumps.
> 
> Yes, local-scope labels would be a wonderful thing, but that's a *big*
> enhancement, and in any event, not what the displacement range check does
> (although it could be used in limited circumstances to provide a limited
> amount of locality checking).
> 
> I use the range check for an "uh-oh, you're in danger of running out of
> your
> 4096 bytes of addressability" check. Does anyone know of another
> "intended"
> use?
> 
> Charles
/snip/

My ranged USING is for position-independent subroutines that I copy into
common storage. I don't want my subroutine code looking past its own
boundary into "foreign" storage.

Jeffrey D. Smith
Principal Product Architect
Farsight Systems Corporation
700 KEN PRATT BLVD. #204-159
LONGMONT, CO 80501-6452
303-774-9381 direct
303-484-6170 FAX
http://www.farsight-systems.com/
comments are invited on my encryption project

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Charles Mills

FWIW I solve this problem by using a separate CSECT for a GETMAIN storage
template. Wastes a load to address the CSECT, but you only need to do it
once. Then you can use the CSECT definition "as though it were a DSECT" for
addressing the GETMAIN storage. Real neat and clean.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing)

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:39:06 -0800, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Gee, in my impression, and in my expectations, a USING range check is just
> that: a check to make sure that the displacement in within the limits
> specified.
> 
Yes.  I encountered a problem when I built a template for a control block
in reentrant storage and copied it into part of a work area in acquired
storage.  I used a relative using with an upper bound to map the proper
part of the acquired storage, and put an upper bound on the CSECT base
register to exclude tne template.  But HLASM warned (incorrectly, IMO)
that part of the CSECT could be addressed by both the CSECT base
register and the DSECT base register.

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:39:06 -0800, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Gee, in my impression, and in my expectations, a USING range check is just
> that: a check to make sure that the displacement in within the limits
> specified.
> 
Yes.  I encountered a problem when I built a template for a control block
in reentrant storage and copied it into part of a work area in acquired
storage.  I used a relative using with an upper bound to map the proper
part of the acquired storage, and put an upper bound on the CSECT base
register to exclude tne template.  But HLASM warned (incorrectly, IMO)
that part of the CSECT could be addressed by both the CSECT base
register and the DSECT base register.

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Charles Mills

Gee, in my impression, and in my expectations, a USING range check is just
that: a check to make sure that the displacement in within the limits
specified.

I would not expect it to have any effect on relative jumps.

Yes, local-scope labels would be a wonderful thing, but that's a *big*
enhancement, and in any event, not what the displacement range check does
(although it could be used in limited circumstances to provide a limited
amount of locality checking).

I use the range check for an "uh-oh, you're in danger of running out of your
4096 bytes of addressability" check. Does anyone know of another "intended"
use?

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 12:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing)

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:02:47 -0700, Jeffrey D. Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I had a subroutine with ranged USING to prevent based references
> beyond the bounds of the subroutine.
> 
By experiment a while back, a ranged using properly prohibited references
above the top of the range, but allowed references below the bottom of
the range.  Is this still true, or has it been fixed?

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
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

Re: Assembler question

2006-11-19 Thread Robert A. Rosenberg

At 11:39 -0300 on 10/27/2006, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote about 
Re: Assembler question:



 2. You you can shorten that by offsetting the translate table, e.g.,

STR0,IN
UNPK  OUT(9),IN(5)
TROUT(8),TRTAB-C'0'

TRTAB   DCC'0123456789ABCDEF'

taking care to prevent TRTAB from being within the first 240
bytes of the csect.


Jumping into thread late -

Making the code

STR0,IN
UNPK  OUT(9),IN(5)
NCOUT(8),=8X'0F'  <--- Alter Fx...Fx to 0x...0x
TROUT(8),TRTAB

TRTAB   DCC'0123456789ABCDEF'

fixes the offset issue for the TRTAB

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:12:23 +, john gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Moreover, it must be conceded that analogues of such PL/I constructs as
> 
> declare phantom_cs character(32767) based(pcsp) ;
> 
> pcsp = addr() ;
> 
> and
> 
> addr()->phantom_cs . . . ;
> 
> which permit any sequence of [here at most 32767] storage locations to be
> viewed as a character string, are now grudgingly available in C too; but the
> much more commonly used C asterisk notation declares a pointer to an
> instance of a particular scalar or structure.  C is more much strongly typed
> than PL/I; and Dennis Ritchie, its designer, has said more than once that he
> views this as desirable.
> 
Unfamiliar with PL/I as I am, I see little practical difference between the
above and the equivalent (as far as I understand the PL/I):

typedef char[32767] phantom_cs;
...
... (phantom_cs) &whatever ...;

That said, I loathe C's reliance on null-terminated strings.  (Some claim,
with some validity, that this is more a feature of the Standard Function
Library than of the language proper.  But, practically, the two are
inseparable.)  This makes it impossible to abstract a substring from
a static string without allocating storage, diminishing the usefulness
of the constructs in the example.  The null-termination convention has
cross-infected the programming interfaces to most C kernels.  In contrast, the
BPX1* callable interfaces have boldly and laudably eschewed null-terminated
strings.

So, in answer to Bob Shannon's question:

   Linkname: IBM-MAIN archives -- August 2006 (#278)
   http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0608&L=ibm-main&D=1&O=D&P=32264

... you may add one to the count.

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:02:47 -0700, Jeffrey D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I had a subroutine with ranged USING to prevent based references
> beyond the bounds of the subroutine.
> 
By experiment a while back, a ranged using properly prohibited references
above the top of the range, but allowed references below the bottom of
the range.  Is this still true, or has it been fixed?

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Charles Mills

John, I'm a pointer guy, not an MVC guy. I'm not advocating MVCing fullwords
to halfwords before LHing them.

I'm saying if a 32-bit field is really a structure the first 16 bits of
which are a 16-bit integer, then I ought to define it that way, not as a
32-bit integer. If it's both depending on the circumstances, then I ought to
define it both ways.

And it would be nice if the assembler had an option to warn those of us who
would appreciate being warned if we violated the above. Not a constraint,
but an option.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of john gilmore
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing)

...

There are, I suppose, two polar programming postures.  The first is 
move-orient[at]ed, compile-time bound, and synchronous.  The second is list-

and pointer-orient[at]ed, execution-time bound, and asychronous.

...

because such conversions are anyway all but impossible; but I do find 
attempts to introduce COBOL-like assembly-time constraints into the HLASM 
very disagreeable.

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Edward Jaffe


Jeffrey D. Smith wrote:

I doubt there is any significantly measurable difference in the
performance between RX-type and relative branch instructions.
  


There are some now. There will be more.

--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Jeffrey D. Smith

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 8:35 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing)
> 
/snip/
> I pretty much agree, though I'm somewhat uncomfortable with further
> overloading USING.  It's bursting at the seams with labelled and
> dependent USINGs.  And how would this work with the new-fangled
> baseless code, particularly in the case discussed recently where
> code from two different sources is merged with an editor or with
> COPY?

/snip/

> -- gil

I had a subroutine with ranged USING to prevent based references
beyond the bounds of the subroutine.

I converted the subroutine from based branch to relative branch. Then I
copy-pasted the subroutine to another location in the same CSECT, and
manually changed the branch target labels. The new subroutine also had a
ranged USING. Everything assembled RC=0.

Upon perusal of the assembly listing, I noticed that some of the
relative branches in the new subroutine were referring to labels in
the old subroutine outside of the ranged USING. The relative branches
were ignored by the ranged USING, because there were no base
registers to test in the relative branch instructions.

Rather than try to dig around in the assembler documentation to find
a way to generate a warning/error message for this situation, I just
converted the routines back to RX-type branches. Problem solved.

I doubt there is any significantly measurable difference in the
performance between RX-type and relative branch instructions.


Jeffrey D. Smith
Principal Product Architect
Farsight Systems Corporation
700 KEN PRATT BLVD. #204-159
LONGMONT, CO 80501-6452
303-774-9381 direct
303-484-6170 FAX
http://www.farsight-systems.com/
comments are invited on my encryption project

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread john gilmore

In response to my strictures against strong typing Clark Morris wrote:

As someone who has made great use of the COBOL REDEFINES option, I
don't think that strong typing would necessarily be an impediment to
writing operating system code. I wanted optional flagging because of
people with your point of view. Coming from a COBOL background where
changes in the data definition are automatically accommodated, I
believe that flagging can reduce inadvertent errors. Also making the
operation match the data definition can reduce confusion for the
person who inherits the assembler code.

I am not sure just how to react to this, except to acknowledge that we are
all creatures of our experience, which is often very different and in
consequence of which we often see the world very differently too.

There are, I suppose, two polar programming postures. The first is
move-orient[at]ed, compile-time bound, and synchronous. The second is list-
and pointer-orient[at]ed, execution-time bound, and asychronous.

I have often marvelled at the---in my view entirely misplaced or, better,
mistimed---radical ingenuity embodied in COBOL REDEFINES and analogous
constructs in other SLPLs. (Both C and PL/I can be and now often are
written as a species of COBOL with semicolons.)

COBOL now supports what it calls address modifications and the rest of us
call substring operations, and the availability of execution-time substring
operations entirely eliminates the need for compile-time REDEFINES
operations. Predictably, however, REDEFINES continue to be used heavily;
and the use of address modification is still exiguous.

At my advanced age I have lost any messianic zeal I may once have had to
convert experienced programmers who think in and write move-orient[at]ed
idioms to the use of list- and pointer-orient[at]ed ones instead, not least
because such conversions are anyway all but impossible; but I do find
attempts to introduce COBOL-like assembly-time constraints into the HLASM
very disagreeable.

John Gilmore
Ashland, MA 01721-1817
USA

_
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo005002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo005001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-19 Thread Binyamin Dissen

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:47:32 -0500 Gerhard Postpischil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

:>Charles Mills wrote:
:>> You could do some of that with labeled USINGs.

:>Perhaps, but not enough to handle the requirement. When you are 
:>combining two (or more) programs, frequently the labels will 
:>have duplications, not just the variables.

:>Back in the MVT days, SVCs had to be chopped up so that each 
:>load would fit into a transient area. With later systems, the 
:>requirement for built-in TTRs to subsequent loads has been 
:>removed, but except for the ones completely rewritten, there are 
:>still multiple modules that could and probably should be 
:>combined into single modules. For these, the variable names in 
:>the overlays generally refer to the same fields in control 
:>blocks, but the labels conflict. While there are some SVCs that 
:>should not be combined (SVC 34 comes to mind), some such as 
:>19/22 might yield enough performance improvements to justify the 
:>work.

I wonder how much performance improvement can be done by reducing the code
path for OPEN. OPEN has to access the media to read labels, after all.

--
Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-18 Thread Gerhard Postpischil


Charles Mills wrote:

You could do some of that with labeled USINGs.


Perhaps, but not enough to handle the requirement. When you are 
combining two (or more) programs, frequently the labels will 
have duplications, not just the variables.


Back in the MVT days, SVCs had to be chopped up so that each 
load would fit into a transient area. With later systems, the 
requirement for built-in TTRs to subsequent loads has been 
removed, but except for the ones completely rewritten, there are 
still multiple modules that could and probably should be 
combined into single modules. For these, the variable names in 
the overlays generally refer to the same fields in control 
blocks, but the labels conflict. While there are some SVCs that 
should not be combined (SVC 34 comes to mind), some such as 
19/22 might yield enough performance improvements to justify the 
work.


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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-18 Thread glen herrmannsfeldt

> I thing stronger typing, such as a warning if an LH referenced a fullword,
> would be a plus in the assembler. I am assuming here that it could be turned
> on and off, preferably with something like PUSH TYPING. I for one would turn
> it on. I would welcome a warning if I did an LH on a fullword, particularly
> in the situation where I changed a halfword to a fullword and missed making
> the corresponding change to one or more instructions.

I would say that it should not apply if there is an offset,
similar to alignment not being done on DC with explicit length.

  LH 1,X+2

to load the low halfword of X should not get a warning, as
it is obviously not supposed to match.  An offset of zero
could be a way to turn off type matching.

Do you want real type matching, or just length?

Does LE on a F constant genearte a warning?

-- glen

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

In a recent note, Jeffrey D. Smith said:

> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:21:32 -0700
> 
> The flat namespace of HLASM is the real problem. There should be
> a way to hide labels within a DSECT until the DSECT is anchored
> with a USING. Until the owning DSECT is made addressable through
> a USING, the symbol should not conflict with the same name of a
> symbol defined in another DSECT. If more than one symbol of the
> same name (in different addressable DSECTs), then issue an error
> message. Otherwise, just use the symbol that is addressable. There
> should be some syntactical sugar that indicates the programmer
> knows there are multiple symbol matches and knows the consequences
> of using the wrong symbol.
> 
I pretty much agree, though I'm somewhat uncomfortable with further
overloading USING.  It's bursting at the seams with labelled and
dependent USINGs.  And how would this work with the new-fangled
baseless code, particularly in the case discussed recently where
code from two different sources is merged with an editor or with
COPY?  And remember that the first operand of USING is not necessarily
a DSECT name, but any symbol.

Some sort of namespace structuring might greatly relieve the
burden on &SYSECT.  Think of reviving the renaming rules for
ALGOL 60's moribund call-by-name convention.

How should XREF reflect the use of qualified multiple names?

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

In a recent note, Charles Mills said:

> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:17:04 -0800
> 
> - Symbols were only 5 characters long.
> - But only the first three characters were significant, so STORE and STOP
> were the same symbol.
> 
I am unalterably opposed to quiet truncation, even of trailing blanks,
when the data length exceeds the supported maximum.  I believe I discussed
here a case where a Bad terminal emulator convered nulls to blanks on
a Read Modified.  TSO issued a prompt, placed the cursor on the next
line with no intervening attribute byte.  I typed the response at the
cursor position; TSO read the response and discarded characters beyond
80.  On a Model 5, my text was simply lost;  the diagnostic was generic,
such as "INVALID RESPONSE", offering little help.  Actually it may have
echoed the initial 80 blanks as part of the message.

> - There was no possibility of a duplicate symbol: the assembler just did a
> redefinition of the symbol. So not only were STORE and STOP the same symbol,
> defining both did not generate an error: References to STOxx just went from
> referring to the field defined as STORE to the field defined as STOP.
> 
I knew a CDC assembler that tolerated redefinition with the same value.
This percolated up to the FORTRAN compiler -- multiple definitions of
a label were tolerated if there was no intervening code.

I once wrote a very simple assembler with this behavior -- I made little
distinction in the logic between Pass 1 and Pass 2.  If I encountered
a label definition and the address matched the prior definition, I
assumed it was probably the second pass and ignored it.  There were
some cases where EQU errors were caught because the value was different
in the second pass.

> - There was no possibility of an undefined symbol. Anything you forgot to
> define, the assembler just made it into an EXTRN, postponing the error
> (hopefully!) to linkedit time.
> 
Ugh.  I have the same complaint about JCL.  I'd much prefer to see
the reference to the undefined '&WOMBAT' flagged as an undefined
symbol error rather than left unsubstituted, to produce no clearer
diagnostic than "ILLEGAL USE OF AMPERSAND ...".  (But I'm considering
exploiting the behavior in some code I'm about to write, where the
symbol may either be SET or create a temporary data set -- if you
have a lemon ...).  Rexx, at least, lets the programmer detect
unassigned variables with "signal on novalue".  That's the second
line in every Rexx program I write.

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

2006-11-18 Thread Jeffrey D. Smith

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 8:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: assembler question (strong typing)
> 
> In a recent note, Charles Mills said:
> 
> > Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:39:22 -0800
> >
> > You could do some of that with labeled USINGs.
> >
> But only some.  It requires the programmer to explicitly qualify
> each symbol use
> 
> I recall vaguely that the 709 (et. al.) assembler, FAP, had
> an operation called HED that did something like that.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf
> > Of Gerhard Postpischil
> > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:35 PM
> >
> > If John E. is lurking, there is one feature I'd really love to
> > see - qualifiers. Suppose you wish to combine two programs that
> > have duplicate variables - prefix each code section with a
> > qualifying name, and the assembler correctly resolves the local
> > references. In a way this was a precursor to the way unexposed
> 
> -- gil
/snip/

The flat namespace of HLASM is the real problem. There should be
a way to hide labels within a DSECT until the DSECT is anchored
with a USING. Until the owning DSECT is made addressable through
a USING, the symbol should not conflict with the same name of a
symbol defined in another DSECT. If more than one symbol of the
same name (in different addressable DSECTs), then issue an error
message. Otherwise, just use the symbol that is addressable. There
should be some syntactical sugar that indicates the programmer
knows there are multiple symbol matches and knows the consequences
of using the wrong symbol.

Jeffrey D. Smith
Principal Product Architect
Farsight Systems Corporation
700 KEN PRATT BLVD. #204-159
LONGMONT, CO 80501-6452
303-774-9381 direct
303-484-6170 FAX
http://www.farsight-systems.com/
comments are invited on my encryption project

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)

In a recent note, Charles Mills said:

> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:39:22 -0800
> 
> You could do some of that with labeled USINGs.
> 
But only some.  It requires the programmer to explicitly qualify
each symbol use

I recall vaguely that the 709 (et. al.) assembler, FAP, had
an operation called HED that did something like that.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Gerhard Postpischil
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:35 PM
> 
> If John E. is lurking, there is one feature I'd really love to
> see - qualifiers. Suppose you wish to combine two programs that
> have duplicate variables - prefix each code section with a
> qualifying name, and the assembler correctly resolves the local
> references. In a way this was a precursor to the way unexposed

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

--
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

Re: assembler question (strong typing)