The long-displacement facility has been part of the z/OS architecture level set
since z/OS 2.1 (including the "high performance" variant).
Mark B wrote:
If you need to test a facility bit in the range of 0-31 then use the list of
bits stored by the STORE FACILITY LIST instruction, which should
>> IHAFACL
uops - I spoke too soon
Am 04.03.22 um 19:44 schrieb Philippe Leite:
Macro IHAFACL
Regards,
Philippe Leite
LAB Services - IBM
and for the VSE people around
z/VSE stores facility indications beginning at V=R location 200 (C8 hex), so
you don't have to issue these instructions yourself.)
and to IBM people supporting this:
wouldn't it be nice to have a copy book such that you can simply code:
TM my_feature_of_inte
On 3/4/2022 12:38 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
https://www-03.ibm.com/services/supline/products/ExtendedSupport/SystemZ_EOS.pdf
would seem to support my assertion that V2R2 is still in extended support,
until September 2023.
Haha! We don't count the three-year service extensions. We code to
anno
Behalf Of Ed Jaffe
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 12:28 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Long Displacement Facility (was: Fun with RXSBG)
On 3/4/2022 11:24 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> ... My rule is to support the
> oldest version of z/OS still in extended support, which
On 3/4/2022 11:24 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
... My rule is to support the
oldest version of z/OS still in extended support, which I believe is
currently V2R2, and the oldest hardware that it supports, which is the z10.
The oldest supported OS is currently z/OS 2.3 and the oldest hardware it
su
Some customer surfaces who
is still running a z9? Do a custom build with ARCH(7).
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Dave Clark
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 9:01 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Long D
> What is the macro to generate facility bit EQUs?
In TPF, it's IZARCH. 😉 For the z/OS macro, I'd have to phone a friend.
Actually I just did a Google search and found IHAPSAE, which itself points you
to IHAFACL.
- mb
Macro IHAFACL
Regards,
Philippe Leite
LAB Services - IBM
PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Long Displacement Facility (was: Fun with RXSBG)
> I went back and checked:
>
>
> o Long-displacement facility was first documented in SA22-7832-02
>
> o STFLE was first documented in SA22-7832-04
If you need to test a facilit
f Operation for details.)
- mb
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Ed Jaffe
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 12:53 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Long Displacement Facility (was: Fun with RXSBG)
On 3/4/2022 9:31 AM, Dave Clark wro
The long-displacement facility wasn't in the first z/Architecture machine, but
it followed soon thereafter. The first implementation was done in firmware —
primarily to allow IBM internal testing of new software. It was implemented in
hardware in any z/Architecture machine shipped after June 200
On 3/4/2022 9:31 AM, Dave Clark wrote:
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
03/04/2022 12:19:51 PM:
IIRC, STFLE is newer than the Long Displacement Facility. LOL
It wouldn't appear so. STFLE is facility 7 and LDF is facility 18.
I went back and checked:
o Long-displacement fa
Long Displacement Facility (was: Fun with RXSBG)
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
03/03/2022 05:22:52 PM:
> Not counting any branch following the determination, I had
> previously managed to trim this down to three instructions. For
> example, to determine if a prospective inse
There is another way to test facility bits:
We can use field FLCFACL on PSA+x'C8'.
Regards,
Philippe Leite
LAB Services - IBM
On 3/4/2022 9:31 AM, Dave Clark wrote:
It wouldn't appear so. STFLE is facility 7 and LDF is facility 18.
Thanks for the clarification.
For the record, I would never, Ever, EVER test the long-displacement
facility bit and code two different paths in my code.
Doing so would be ridiculous...
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
03/04/2022 12:19:51 PM:
> IIRC, STFLE is newer than the Long Displacement Facility. LOL
It wouldn't appear so. STFLE is facility 7 and LDF is facility
18.
Sincerely,
Dave Clark
--
int.ext: 91078
direct: (937) 531-6378
home: (937) 751-3300
W
IIRC, STFLE is newer than the Long Displacement Facility. LOL
On 3/4/2022 9:16 AM, Philippe Leite wrote:
--
Phoenix Software International
Edward E. Jaffe
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
03/04/2022 12:06:26 PM:
> Every other box (z800, z900 GA2, and beyond)
> has had this feature standard. There is no reasonable
> rationale for not using this 22 year-old facility.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dave Clark
--
int.ext: 91078
direct: (93
On 3/4/2022 9:01 AM, Dave Clark wrote:
So, I looked at the original email again and did some research
into the LAY instruction. That is when I read about the Long Displacement
Facility (LDF) having to be installed for this instruction to work
(otherwise: operation exception). So, othe
"IBM Mainframe Assembler List" wrote on
03/03/2022 05:22:52 PM:
> Not counting any branch following the determination, I had
> previously managed to trim this down to three instructions. For
> example, to determine if a prospective insertion crosses a 4 K-byte
boundary:
> 1. LAY S,-1(L,P)
22 matches
Mail list logo
