Re: [Fwd: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)]

Actually the terminology is much more ambiguous than that. Register size, address size, bus size within CPU, bus size to memory, bus size to peripherals, could all be different bit widths, and physical hardware register sizes don't have to match the register sizes of the hardware architecture

[Fwd: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)]

Be careful with like terms between the PC(intel) world and the mainframe world. When someone says they have a 64-bit Intel server (Intel, Solaris, AMD, etc.), it does not mean that the server can access an address 64-bits long, the 64-bits refers to the width of the bus. So it can transfer 64-bi

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:33:37 -0500, McKown, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L >> Subject: Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level >> for SETFRR for AMODE(64) >> >> >> What's t

Re: COBOL and 64 bits was Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

For a few years, we were presumably in "no new COBOL -- just maintain what you have" mode. Oddly enough, our code base seemed to keep growing. Apparently, some things just write themselves. For that matter, the whole concept that maintenance is something that could be performed by mindless dr

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 13:44 -0500, Ed Gould wrote: > The Largeness of the numbers just floored me back then, so I am not > impressed with 64 bits at all. I remember once being at a SHARE where an IBMer was talking about the OfficeVision product. Someone commented from the audience about the lar

Fw: COBOL and 64 bits was Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

I don't want to get into either the: Does IBM need to provide a 64-bit COBOL (for z/OS) compiler - because of "business" needs of programmers or - because of what it says to their customers about COBOL Nor What is the current "need" for and what is the future of CO

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Hunkeler Peter (KIUB 34) wrote: So assuming you could use the whole drive, the number of these current generation drives that you would need to back a single address space is (2**64)/(2**38) = 2**(64-38) = 2**26 = 67,108,864 Back in my "old life" I once did a

Re: COBOL and 64 bits was Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jon Brock > > I am of two minds about whether "the need for COBOL is dying." > On one hand, it has served (and served well) for many > years and is very well-suited for its original purpose. Likewise

Re: COBOL and 64 bits was Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

I am of two minds about whether "the need for COBOL is dying." On one hand, it has served (and served well) for many years and is very well-suited for its original purpose. On the other hand, as time goes by there are fewer people around who know it. It is becoming in

COBOL and 64 bits was Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

On 18 Jul 2006 11:32:54 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >On Jul 18, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Veilleux, Jon L wrote: > >> I always get blank looks when I ask what would happen if someone >> actually tried to exploit 64bit addressing to the fullest. How do we >> provide page space to back these

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

>So assuming you could use the whole drive, the number of these current >generation drives that you would need to back a single address space is > > (2**64)/(2**38) = 2**(64-38) = 2**26 = 67,108,864 Back in my "old life" I once did a presentation at an IBM customer meeting trying to illustrate ho

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

On Jul 18, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Veilleux, Jon L wrote: I always get blank looks when I ask what would happen if someone actually tried to exploit 64bit addressing to the fullest. How do we provide page space to back these requests? As someone responsible for keeping our mainframes up and running, i

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

Sparse? Ah, the final frontier Daniel McLaughlin ZOS Systems Programmer Crawford & Company PH: 770 621 3256 * "Everything comes to him who hustles while he waits." ? Thomas A. Edison -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / sign

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:24 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level > for SETFRR for AMO

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64) > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Beh

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craddock, Chris > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:05 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for > SETFRR for AMODE(

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

opinions are strictly my own. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:26 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

] On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L Sent: 18 July 2006 07:26 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64) I always get blank looks when I ask what would happen if someone actually tried to exploit 64bit addressing to the fullest. How do

Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (860) 636-2683 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craddock, Chris Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64

64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)

> >> AFAIK, the total capacity of all DASD ever manufactured is still > >> insufficient to fully back even ONE 64-bit address space > > At the rate 80 - 200 gigabyte drives and higher have been produced and > sold, is the statement being made for only mainframe DASD? I realize > that no z box

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

On 17 Jul 2006 06:17:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >> > Interesting thing about the expansion is that it uses ALET >> > field to store the >> > 64 bit address. Looks like 64 bit dataspaces ain't a'coming. >> >> Why would you need one? >> >> AFAIK, the total capacity of all DASD e

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

In a message dated 7/17/2006 1:57:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >A 64 bit caller will not have garbage bits in registers. When program X is first dispatched in MVS from // EXEC PGM=programX, the contents of general purpose registers 1, 13, 14, and 15 are defined

AMODE(64) (was RE: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?)

== -Original Message- From: "Edward Jaffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 7/17/2006 12:50 PM To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU" Subject: Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)? Jeffrey D. Smith wrote: |Well, it s

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

Binyamin Dissen wrote: A 64 bit caller will not have garbage bits in registers. Not true! A 64-bit caller will not have "garbage" bits in any register it happens to be using at the moment to hold an address. Any other bits in any other registers are "fair game"! -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

Jeffrey D. Smith wrote: |Well, it seems simple enough to wrap SETFRR to force |AMODE(31), then bounce back to whatever the AMODE |was before (31 or 64): | |BAS R14,WRAP |SETFRR |BSM 0,R14 |WRAPO R14,=X'8000' |BASSM R14,R14 | |This should work w

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:10:00 + "Jeffrey D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>=== :>-Original Message- :>From: "Edward Jaffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :>Sent: 7/17/2006 11:46 AM :>To: "

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

=== -Original Message- From: "Edward Jaffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 7/17/2006 11:46 AM To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU" Subject: Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)? Jeffrey D. Smith wrote: > As an ISV, I don&#

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

Jeffrey D. Smith wrote: As an ISV, I don't have the luxury of coding to the most current architecture. My code must still run on ESA/390 which may not have those instructions. sigh... As an ISV?? (Guess I wouldn't know anything about that. ;-) FWIW, we use TAM, SAM31, and SAM64 when PSAZARC

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

= -Original Message- From: "Bob Shannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 7/17/2006 11:13 AM To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU" Subject: Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)? >As an ISV, I don't have the luxury of coding

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

>As an ISV, I don't have the luxury of coding to the most current >architecture. My code must still run on ESA/390 which may not have those >instructions. sigh... So why are you worried about Amode 64 SETFRR? Bob Shannon -- For

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

== -Original Message- From: "Edward Jaffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 7/17/2006 10:45 AM To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU" Subject: Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)? Jeffrey D. Smith wrote: > sigh time to look up BS

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

Jeffrey D. Smith wrote: sigh time to look up BSM/BASSM again after all these years. Shouldn't you be looking at TAM, SAM31, and SAM64 instead? -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] h

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/17/2006 at 07:34 AM, "Chase, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Why would you need one? Google for "sparse array". -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don't care. We don't ha

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

=== -Original Message- From: "Peter Relson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 7/16/2006 4:45 PM To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU" Subject: Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)? It is (properly) documented that SETFRR support

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

=== -Original Message- From: "Chase, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 7/17/2006 6:34 AM To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU" Subject: Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)? > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mai

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

> > Interesting thing about the expansion is that it uses ALET > > field to store the > > 64 bit address. Looks like 64 bit dataspaces ain't a'coming. > > Why would you need one? > > AFAIK, the total capacity of all DASD ever manufactured is still > insufficient to fully back even ONE 64-bit addr

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen > > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:37:50 -0400 Jim Mulder wrote: > > [ snip ] > > :> ESTAEX has supported AMODE(64) since OS/390 2.10, and is > so documented. > > My mistake. I even have code that issues

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

It is (properly) documented that SETFRR supports only invocation in AMODE 24 and AMODE 31. This might change in a future release, but there is very slim benefit to do that. In that release, invocation in AMODE 64 would result in your FRR being given control in AMODE 64. There are many branch-entr

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:37:50 -0400 Jim Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 07/14/2006 :>05:18:00 PM: :>> Is SETFRR available for an AMODE(64) program? If so, :>> at what z/OS level will it work? :>> Also, what about ESTAEX? :>The z/OS 1.8 SETFRR ma

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 07/14/2006 05:18:00 PM: > Is SETFRR available for an AMODE(64) program? If so, > at what z/OS level will it work? > > Also, what about ESTAEX? The z/OS 1.8 SETFRR macro appears to have had some some kind of AMODE(64) support added by Peter Relson .

Re: z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:18:00 + "Jeffrey D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>Is SETFRR available for an AMODE(64) program? If so, :>at what z/OS level will it work? :>Also, what about ESTAEX? As far as I am aware, none. It would be nice. Make sure your work area is below the bar and swit

z/OS level for SETFRR for AMODE(64)?

Greetings, Is SETFRR available for an AMODE(64) program? If so, at what z/OS level will it work? Also, what about ESTAEX? Thanks in advance. Jeffrey D. Smith Farsight Systems Corporation 24 BURLINGTON DR LONGMONT, CO 80501 303-774-9381 direct 303-709-8153 cell 303-484-6170 fax ---