Hmmm, you mention "speculative execution". Maybe that make it vulnerable to
meltdown/spectre type attacks.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dan Greiner
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 17:47
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Removal of
I was as surprised – no, make that shocked – to see that IBM announced the
removal of transactional-execution (TX) and constrained-transactional-execution
(CTX) facilities in some future Z system. During the development of the
facility, it showed significant (incredible!) performance benefits
The dual path requirement put me off doing anything with it for a long time.
I thought using it to follow suspect pointer chains instead of using
ESPIE/ESTAE would be worth dual pathing the ESPIE/ESTAE code, but that is now
moot.
Robert
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler
Maybe Dan Greiner can comment on why IBM went to the trouble to introduce
this powerful facility and then pull it?
ISVs who implemented code using the transactional execution facility might
feel kinda "had" now...
Mike Shaw
MVS/QuickRef Support Group
Chicago-Soft, Ltd.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at
In the Statement of general direction in the z16 announcement at:
https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/1/897/ENUS122-001/index.html
It says IBM will remove support for the transactional execution facility, I
guess there's no point in attempting to exploit this
Interesting look under the covers of the z16:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDtaanCENbc
For this video to have been made, it's obvious that it's not your father's IBM
(marketing department) anymore.
Not much in the way of details, but information on new z16 instructions that
might be of interest to members of this list:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=IBM-Z-Arch14-GCC
Robert Ngan
DXC Luxoft
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Dan
