Excellent analysis- assembler list is the only list where I have to be carefull (reply all and erase original)-
- Original message -
Sent: 2013/04/17 00:43:10
Subject: Re:yahoo and ASSEMBLER-LIST
The cause is indeed Yahoo's email. It automatically inserts a Reply-To with the sen
On 4/16/2013 3:55 PM, Scott Ford wrote:
I want to ask a question, in this day/age and processing power is it really
worth
being concerned about Assembler instructions speed ?
I am not unbiased. My answer is exactly what one would expect from the
CTO of a software company that has been authorin
Assembler codeset translation calls are documented in Unicode Services.
Since Scott has mentioned his product is calling assembler routines from an LE
environment, I'm guessing it's written in C. If that is the case, ICONV will do
the conversions.
Jon Perryman.
- Original Message
> Fro
The assembler equivalent of Modernizr would be the STORE FACILITY LIST
EXTENDED (STFLE) instruction.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:46:28 -0400, Martin Packer
wrote:
Slightly surprised nobody has used Modernizr as an analogue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernizr
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer,
zCha
Another resource:
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/software/globalization/codepages.html
Hey, Duffy,
your Reply-to was set to your email and not the list also.
-Steve
On 4/16/2013 2:55 PM, Duffy Nightingale, SSPI wrote:
Here is my reply - which I thought ended up going to your personal
Yeah, this is why, after thinking about it, I did not change this list to
Reply-To= List,Ignore
Sometimes personal replies are desirable/necessary. See the recent "Happy
Gilmore" thread: I wanted to get further discussion off-list to annoy
fewer people.
As Steve Comstock suggested, yahoo users
On 16 April 2013 18:36, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> No
>
> Because some mailers are broken, Darren introduced a breakage,
> intended to be offsetting in IBM-MAIN. As a result, when I
> want private replies (as for a survey question, for which I have
> agreed to summarize back to the list), I can
For us, yes. We pay most of our software based on MSU usage. My boss says
that one MSU reduction will save us $13,000/yr. Is this huge? To us, yes.
We must constantly fight the management belief that Windows is "better!
Cheaper! faster!" If some company could do a conversion with a 1 year ROI,
they
Ed,
I want to ask a question, in this day/age and processing power is it really
worth
being concerned about Assembler instructions speed ? Unless there is some
application that is very time sensitive, that I understand
Regards,
Scott J Ford
Software Engineer
http://www.identityforge.com/
On 2013-04-16 13:18, John Gilmore wrote:
>
> Even if---wrongly in my view---SMP/E is not used to install a product,
> some formalized installation procedure is presumably used; and such a
> procedure can make use of multiple libraries of executables from which
> selections are made parametrically.
Ataturk took Turkish out of the Arabic alphabet (a slightly extended
one), moving it into the Roman alphabet with many orthographic marks;
and in doing so he standardized it, eliminating most of the messy,
irregular usages and orthography that accumulate in all natural
languages that are not under
On 2013-04-16 15:43, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>
> What follows is a copy that I sent to the list owner last August:
>
> Reply-to= List,Respect
>
> My guess is that it should be changed to this:
> Reply-To= List,Ignore
> which is how it is configured for the IBM-MAIN listserv:
> http://www.lsoft.com/s
On 16 April 2013 18:18, DASDBILL2 wrote:
> Depending on which linguist does the classification and counting, there are
> between six and seven thousand human languages spoken today. Fortunately,
> the number of different writing systems is much smaller, but there are many,
> many writing syste
Depending on which linguist does the classification and counting, there are
between six and seven thousand human languages spoken today. Fortunately, the
number of different writing systems is much smaller, but there are many, many
writing systems. Some look just like another writing system bu
On 4/16/2013 12:43 PM, Gibney, Dave wrote:
I don't get to work at this level often, but I am always interested.
How can Millicode be faster than the equivalent using the hardware
instructions? As I understand Millicode, that is really all it is
(using the hardware instructions) plus any overhead
You can do it, to some degree, but its a lot of work and not worth the time and
effort. It's a "global" setting, not a per message setting.
>
> From: Steve Comstock
>To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:53 PM
>Subject: Re: yahoo
On 4/16/2013 3:43 PM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
The cause is indeed Yahoo's email. It automatically inserts a Reply-To with
the sender's email address.
Frank,
I use Thuderbird email client and it, too, automatically sets
the Reply-to to be my address. Every post I make to any of
the listserv li
The cause is indeed Yahoo's email. It automatically inserts a Reply-To with
the sender's email address.
What follows is a copy that I sent to the list owner last August:
-
It appears that when ASSEMB
Yep, amen , Steve I just a few minutes ago...thanks a bunch
Much appreciated.
Regards,
Scott J Ford
Software Engineer
http://www.identityforge.com/
From: Steve Comstock
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:26 PM
Subject: Re:
Pretty cool Steve. We saw that site during our battle. You da man! Duf
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:26 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Transl
From the Tachyon site:
Turkish EBCDIC:
http://www.tachyonsoft.com/cp01026.htm
or
http://www.tachyonsoft.com/cp01155.htm
Turkish ASCII:
http://www.tachyonsoft.com/iso88599.htm
Go forth and translate
On 4/16/2013 2:55 PM, Duffy Nightingale, SSPI wrote:
Here is my reply - which I t
Here is my reply - which I thought ended up going to your personal email.
Oddly enough, I could easily believe that. We didn't do Turkish ASCII and
we were going EBCDIC to ASCII but it was a foreign language issue. It was
very difficult. If you can't find a table, what we ended up doing is using
Mr Geissbuehler,
Different kinds of people having very different views of the world
come together here. They would seldom have much to say to, or even
encounter, each other elsewhere; and this sometimes makes
communication difficult.
We are all creatures of our experience, and we experience the
Resending to the list because of earlier Reply-To header trouble.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tony Harminc
Date: 16 April 2013 15:00
Subject: Re: Translate Table
To: Scott Ford
On 16 April 2013 14:27, Scott Ford wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Has anyone seen a table similar to EZACICTR
Thats because it went to :
ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
I think its Yahoo , a lot of my replies and questions show up real late
Scott J Ford
Software Engineer
http://www.identityforge.com/
From: Steve Comstock
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Se
From John Gilmore:
Mr. Stokes has has made a valid point, but I am now gun shy. Machine
instructions that end in the letter 'E' are problematic for some here.
Mr. Gilmore, the instruction set expanded over time like the LEGO (tm). Many
specialty pieces were added for Star Wars which are also us
Dave Gibney wrote:
How can Millicode be faster than the equivalent using the hardware instructions?
As I understand Millicode, that is really all it is (using the
hardware instructions) plus any overhead in context switching to the
Millicode "environment".
This is a common misunderstanding that
On 4/16/2013 12:27 PM, Scott Ford wrote:
Guys,
Has anyone seen a table similar to EZACICTR to translate ASCII to EBCDIC ...I
am looking for one that does
would you believe Turkish Ascii to EBCDIC ...
I would appreciate any pointers or help
Scott J Ford
Software Engineer
http://www.identityfor
Slightly surprised nobody has used Modernizr as an analogue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernizr
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence, IBM
+44-7802-245-584
email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com
Twitter / Facebook IDs: Mart
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
> l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of John Gilmore
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:29 PM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: TRTE and new instructions
>
> Peter Farley's points are interesting o
Peter Farley's points are interesting ones. My numbers tell a very
different tale, and I suspect that these differences turn on when such
measurements are taken.
The first appearances of new instructions, millicoded ones anyway, do
often exhibit 'bad' performance; but this performance sometimes,
Tom Marchant wrote:
I don't follow the logic of this. Can you provide a concrete example
of how a customer is deprived of a new facility because my code
doesn't use that facility?
The customer is deprived of the benefits of its use in your code.
Parametric, tailored OCO delivery is not in my
> I don't question the value of using macro-driven machinery for
> generating the code to emulate instructions. However, in OCO code,
> coping with the unavailability of machine instructions must be done
> at run time, not at assembly time.
Only sort of. Depending on the code, you could have an
Guys,
Has anyone seen a table similar to EZACICTR to translate ASCII to EBCDIC ...I
am looking for one that does
would you believe Turkish Ascii to EBCDIC ...
I would appreciate any pointers or help
Scott J Ford
Software Engineer
http://www.identityforge.com/
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:03:20 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
> Macro-driven machinery for
>coping with the unavailability of machine instructions can be generic.
> Once put in place it is reusable.
I don't question the value of using macro-driven machinery for
generating the code to emulate instr
The latest Enterprise COBOL compiler still generates them, along with a lot of
other "anachronisms" related to enforcing the ancient COBOL standards from 1985.
But this discussion has not touched on another crucial piece of any decision to
use or not use "newer" (FSVO "new") instructions -- Do t
Tom Marchant writes:
There are times when there is good reason to provide the alternate
path. There are other times when little is gained by the use of the
newer instruction and it is prudent to avoid it.
and this is certainly true globally; but the devil, along with the
good God, is to be fou
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:49:05 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
>... Machine
>instructions that end in the letter 'E' are problematic for some here.
No, that is not the issue, Mr. Gilmore, and I'm sure that you know it.
The Compare-and-move-extended facility and the MVCLE and CLCLE
instructions were int
David Bond wrote:
>
> I have done channel programming in C for two different employers. Not LE C,
> but that would not have made a difference. C gives you everything you need
> to handle all of the fiddly bits. I do not find C clumsy at all.
Hear Hear!!
- Dave R. -
--
riv...@dignus.c
Guys,
Thank you, I didn't see any restrictions on being able to issue ARM macros.
I have a customer inquiring and I did not want to assume I could..
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
'Infinite wisdom through infinite means'
On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:19 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
> I can
I have done channel programming in C for two different employers. Not LE C,
but that would not have made a difference. C gives you everything you need
to handle all of the fiddly bits. I do not find C clumsy at all.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:30:54 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
>I am not sure that I sho
Mr. Stokes has has made a valid point, but I am now gun shy. Machine
instructions that end in the letter 'E' are problematic for some here.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
Does anyone still use CLCL and MVCL? CLCLE and MVCLE have been around for,
like, well over ten years.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im
Auftrag von John Gilmore
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. April 2013 14:14
An: ASSEMBLER-LI
I am not sure that I should wish to try to do channel programming in
COBOL or even C. It may be possible, but I suspect that it would be
clumsy and less than perspicuous.
More seriously, while the LE is valuable in many contexts---It
replaces a different run-time environment for each procedural
The notion that macro-based substitutions for 'new', and thus
unavailable in some contexts, machine instructions are impractical in
the 'real world' has become a shibboleth, used to distinguish
practical people bent upon 'providing good service' from impractical,
ivory-tower theoreticians or, worse
I ate many kosher Chinese egg rolls purchased at Katz' Kosher D eli in
Rockville, MD when I lived near there long ago.
Bill Fairchild
Franklin, TN
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
acceptable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” [Georg
I cannot imagine anything in the system z world that would require "pure
assembler".
You just have to meet the interface requirements (including environmental
and authorization), whatever they may be.
There are some programs that cannot be run except as started tasks, That
would not apply to an as
47 matches
Mail list logo
