Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

At 22:05 +0200 on 01/14/2015, Binyamin Dissen wrote about Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64: On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:41:46 -0500 "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" wrote: :>In <7102282945307177.wa.dlikensinfosecinc@listserv.ua.edu>, on :>01/14/2015 :> at 08:00 AM, Donald Likens said: :>>AMODE

IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

If you'd like some introductory information on the Vector Facility for z/Architecture (SIMD) capabilities, this paper should help: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/technotes/tips1259.pdf Yes, Mathematical Acceleration Subsystem (MASS), Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms (BLAS), and Automatically Tuned L

Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

John McKown writes: >This might help people to convert to z/OS. Of >course, there is still that nasty EBCDIC >issue for any conversion.​ That's just not correct. z/OS imposes absolutely no requirement to use or to convert to EBCDIC. Zero, zip, nada. Store and manage everything in Unicode if you

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

Hi Mark, I successfully installed SMP/e at 3.5 on a z/OS 1.4 system. Worked fine, including the FIXCATs. After installing SMP/e at a higher level than your zones were. Built with, you need to issue the upgrade command for each global. Instructions included with the installation doc. HTH, Lin

Re: Compile COBOL Programs In 64 Bit.

--- SNIP-- Can't those arguments, both for and against, be applied to any language you name? Taken together, there were never "use cases and verifiable needs" for 64-bit hardware in the first place. In fact, it's hard to

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

In <5vidba1s00e932fiphts1nu0tijahcu...@4ax.com>, on 01/14/2015 at 10:05 PM, Binyamin Dissen said: >What issues do you perceive sharing a STATIC data area? One task overwritinf data used by another task. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see

Re: Compile COBOL Programs In 64 Bit.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:27:54 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >Can't those arguments, both for and against, be applied to any language you >name? Taken together, there were never "use cases and verifiable needs" >for 64-bit hardware in the first place. Doesn't stop people asking for it. Over a year

Re: Compile COBOL Programs In 64 Bit.

> AMODE 64 code will run slower than AMODE 31 code Really? Because the compile will generate extra instructions or similar, or inherently because of the hardware architecture? I thought there was some discussion here recently that dismissed the latter (other than a trivial factor). Charles

Re: Compile COBOL Programs In 64 Bit.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:51:52 -0800, Tom Ross wrote: >>Hi,I am looking for COBOL compiler option to compile our COBOL programs in = >>64 Bit mode.Please lead me if you have such a experience .The COBOL version= >> is 4.2 on Z9 with z/OS 1.12. Best regardsManshadi > >AMODE 64 COBOL is still being wo

Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 5:16 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:30:16 -0500,

Re: Dataset PACK profile

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:33:11 -0600, Dan wrote: >I have a strange memory of a previous thread about ISPF PACKing (probably pre >1995). > >I seem to recall someone from IBM (in the ISPF area) posting a query about the >use of the ISPF PACK option. I believe they were hoping to remove the >functi

Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:30:16 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote: >On 14 January 2015 at 17:18, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> >> >DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card. >> >ref: >> >http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2b6a0/16.6 >> > >> Why is there even such a parameter? >> >> Why is its default

Compile COBOL Programs In 64 Bit.

>Hi,I am looking for COBOL compiler option to compile our COBOL programs in = >64 Bit mode.Please lead me if you have such a experience .The COBOL version= > is 4.2 on Z9 with z/OS 1.12. Best regardsManshadi AMODE 64 COBOL is still being worked on here at IBM. I (like the other poster) would like

Binder DASD SIZE (and DWARF)

>We've installed Enterprise COBOL 5 in z/OS 2.1 and I'm experimenting with=20 >the NOTEST(DWARF) COBOL option. >When I Bind the program, I see, for example: >MODULE SIZE (HEX) 00072C24=20 >DASD SIZE (HEX) 0014A000=20 >And I have no idea what that means.=20 >Has anyone been down this path? An

Re: Dataset PACK profile

I have a strange memory of a previous thread about ISPF PACKing (probably pre 1995). I seem to recall someone from IBM (in the ISPF area) posting a query about the use of the ISPF PACK option. I believe they were hoping to remove the function. I've searched the archives but can't seem to find a

Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

On 14 January 2015 at 17:18, Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > >DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card. > >ref: > >http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2b6a0/16.6 > > > Why is there even such a parameter? > > Why is its default not "infinity"?

Re: IBM United States Announcement Letters

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 20:37:41 +, Bob Shannon wrote: >SMT is only implemented on zIFL and zIIP specialty engines. I expect it will >be extended to CPs once IBM gains experience . I wonder if it messes with the z/OS IPL code running in single CPU mode. We'll probably never know. Linux dealt

Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:31:04 -0500, Mark Jacobs - Listserv wrote: >My first guess is that it's related to system resources needed to >support dynamic allocation in a 24-bit address space of the time. > What century is this? Is there a way for administrators to further restrict troublesome users

Re: Changes with z/OS V2.1 and RMF with zFS file system activity collection

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:24:49 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: >Just in case a few have not seen this, RMF monitor at z/OS V2.1 will not >collect for zFS if it is not specified. > >Monitor the zFS file system activity >Description: The Monitor III data gatherer options that control the data >collect

Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

My first guess is that it's related to system resources needed to support dynamic allocation in a 24-bit address space of the time. Mark Jacobs Paul Gilmartin wrote: My first guess is that it's related to system resources needed to support dynamic allocation in a 24-bit address space of the ti

Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

Thanks I thought DYNAMBR was for IKJEFT01 Thanks Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Paul Gilmartin > <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:14:44 -0600, John McKown wrote: >> >> DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card. >> ref: >> http://publibz.

Changes with z/OS V2.1 and RMF with zFS file system activity collection

Just in case a few have not seen this, RMF monitor at z/OS V2.1 will not collect for zFS if it is not specified. Monitor the zFS file system activity Description: The Monitor III data gatherer options that control the data collection for measuring zFS file system activity are ZFS and NOZFS. Befo

Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:14:44 -0600, John McKown wrote: >DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card. >ref: >http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2b6a0/16.6 > Why is there even such a parameter? Why is its default not "infinity"? -- gil --

Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card. ref: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2b6a0/16.6 On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:11 PM, michelbutz wrote: > Hi > > Would anyone know if there is a way to increase the number of datasets > dynamically allocated using > IKJTSOEV/IKJEFTSR to execu

IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached

Hi Would anyone know if there is a way to increase the number of datasets dynamically allocated using IKJTSOEV/IKJEFTSR to execute a clist Sent from my iPhone -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, se

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

At 09:11 -0600 on 01/14/2015, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64: 14 Return address. Bit 0 is 0 if the subtask routine gets control in 24-bit addressing mode; bit 0 is 1 if the subtask routine gets control in 31-bit addressing mode.  15 When the subtask routine is to ru

Re: IBM United States Announcement Letters

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Bob Shannon wrote: >> With SMT (Hyperthreading) the logical number of cores is double the physical >> cores. >>(So it looks like any individual task that is CPU bound and limited to one >>core will take twice as long.) > > SMT is only implemented on zIFL and zIIP

Re: IBM United States Announcement Letters

On 1/14/2015 12:28 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: (So it looks like any individual task that is CPU bound and limited to one core will take twice as long.) What you state is always true for temporal multithreading, which timeslices the execution of CP x with CP y on a single core. But for simultaneo

Re: IBM United States Announcement Letters

> With SMT (Hyperthreading) the logical number of cores is double the physical > cores. >(So it looks like any individual task that is CPU bound and limited to one >core will take twice as long.) SMT is only implemented on zIFL and zIIP specialty engines. I expect it will be extended to CPs onc

IBM United States Announcement Letters

Below is the plain text announcement letter I received for the categories I subscribed to. Some repeat others postings, some haven't been posted. Notes: The max number of physical cores goes from 101 to 141. IBM z13 Models N30, N63, N96, NC9 (129), and NE1 (141). Max throughput is rated at 40% inc

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:41:46 -0500 "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" wrote: :>In <7102282945307177.wa.dlikensinfosecinc@listserv.ua.edu>, on :>01/14/2015 :> at 08:00 AM, Donald Likens said: :>>AMODE 64 routines should be using relative branch and generally :>>should establish addressability to

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

In <7102282945307177.wa.dlikensinfosecinc@listserv.ua.edu>, on 01/14/2015 at 08:00 AM, Donald Likens said: >AMODE 64 routines should be using relative branch and generally >should establish addressability to a static data area What if the code is shared? That goes against decades of codi

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

On 1/14/2015 12:54 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:17:41 -0500, John Eells wrote: I love archeology (grin). In z/OS V1.4: Element Last changed: Equivalent: SMP/E: z/OS V1R2 SMP/E for z/OS and OS/390 V3R1, 5655-G44 Was this also the first release that supported REC

Enterprise COBOL 5.2 announced

More fun from IBM:http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&appname=gpateam&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS215-027#h2-availx (I haven't read it yet.) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive acces

Re: z/OS 2.2 "nifties"

In article <8970765119932831.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu> you wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:42:52 -0500, Don Poitras wrote: > > > >> Good, Better, Excellent. OpenSSH has proven itself sofar to be useful. > > > >I just hope we finally get a binary scp. The current one is pretty > >usele

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:17:41 -0500, John Eells wrote: >I love archeology (grin). > >In z/OS V1.4: > >Element Last changed: Equivalent: > >SMP/E: z/OS V1R2 SMP/E for z/OS and OS/390 V3R1, 5655-G44 > Was this also the first release that supported RECEIVE FROMNTS? Initially IBM made that S

Re: Forced password change held to be harmful -- Was RE: RACF password history was: AW: //STARTING JOB ...

A bit OT, but this, I think, is a good idea: http://www.passwordcard.org/en Best Regards, Thomas Berg ___ Thomas Berg Specialist zOS/RQM/IT Delivery Swedbank AB (Publ) -

Re: Forced password change held to be harmful -- Was RE: RACF password history was: AW: //STARTING JOB ...

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:15:32 -0500, Hobart Spitz wrote: >Under z/VM, SFS has the capability for a user to have the ability to >grant/revoke access to files and directories that are owned by the user's >id. Thus, users can grant and revoke access to/from their own SFS >resources without the bother

Re: z/OS 2.2 "nifties"

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Don Poitras wrote: > In article < > 4802123765485208.wa.elardus.engelbrechtsita.co...@listserv.ua.edu> you > wrote: > > John McKown wrote: > > > >Well, at least I consider them to be. Too bad I'll never see them here. > > > I have for now problems reading those PD

Re: z/OS 2.2 "nifties"

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:42:52 -0500, Don Poitras wrote: > >> Good, Better, Excellent. OpenSSH has proven itself sofar to be useful. > >I just hope we finally get a binary scp. The current one is pretty >useless for most of the stuff I use scp for on other hosts. > Does sftp not suffice? I stumbled

Re: Forced password change held to be harmful -- Was RE: RACF password history was: AW: //STARTING JOB ...

Under z/VM, SFS has the capability for a user to have the ability to grant/revoke access to files and directories that are owned by the user's id. Thus, users can grant and revoke access to/from their own SFS resources without the bother of involving a security staffer, addressing (1) above. Perh

Re: z/OS 2.2 "nifties"

In article <4802123765485208.wa.elardus.engelbrechtsita.co...@listserv.ua.edu> you wrote: > John McKown wrote: > >Well, at least I consider them to be. Too bad I'll never see them here. > I have for now problems reading those PDFs and announcements about z/OS v2.2. > Will try later again. > >

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

John Eells wrote: >I "dug into" the same one I posted last week, namely: > http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/Shelves >I found the shelf for z/OS V1R4, opened z/OS Planning for Installation, then >looked at the table that lists the elements and features. Thanks, I've got it. In

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

Thank you, John for the direct answer. Thanks to everyone else that put effort into the answer. On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:17 AM, John Eells wrote: > I love archeology (grin). > > In z/OS V1.4: > > Element Last changed: Equivalent: > > SMP/E: z/OS V1R2 SMP/E for z/OS and OS/390 V3R1, 5

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za (Elardus Engelbrecht) wrote: John Eells wrote: I love archeology (grin). May I ask where is the URL of that digsite you used? ;-) I "dug into" the same one I posted last week, namely: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/Shelves I found the shelf

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:53:35 -0500, Mark Pace wrote: >Can someone tell me what version of SMP/E was included in z/OS 1.4?3.3 >or 3.4, possibly earlier version? I looked at the Edition Notice in the SMP/E Commands manuals. The 3.1 manual is dated March, 2002. The 3.2 manual is dated August, 2

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

John Eells wrote: >I love archeology (grin). May I ask where is the URL of that digsite you used? ;-) Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

I need to have the 1.4 as a target. But they are having issues with the change to the FIXCAT ++HOLD. So I was trying to find a PTF for APAR IO7480 for their version of SMP/E. 566894901 D00. It appears to me that their version did not get get the remedial service. On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:13 A

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

On 1/14/2015 9:53 AM, Mark Pace wrote: Can someone tell me what version of SMP/E was included in z/OS 1.4?3.3 or 3.4, possibly earlier version? No amount of googling has provided the answer for me. My P390 running z/OS V1R4 shows 32.06. Regardes, Tom Conley -

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

I love archeology (grin). In z/OS V1.4: Element Last changed: Equivalent: SMP/E: z/OS V1R2 SMP/E for z/OS and OS/390 V3R1, 5655-G44 -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

I've got a V1R5 Bookmanager DVD. I'll fire that up if that would be of any help. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark Pace Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: SMP/E v

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

Mark Pace wrote: >Can someone tell me what version of SMP/E was included in z/OS 1.4?3.3 or >3.4, possibly earlier version? Probably 3.1.x or 3.2.x. I said probably, because my documentation + copies are deleted by this time. >No amount of googling has provided the answer for me. Surpris

Re: z/OS 2.2 "nifties"

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 07:25:59 -0600, John McKown wrote: >=== >z/OS V2.2 JES2 and SDSF will be designed to support a new way to track job >step completion codes. A new machine-readable data set is planned to >contain job tracking information, including the completion codes for each >job step. ... >

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:00:40 -0600, Donald Likens wrote: >>AMODE 64 routines should be using relative branch and generally should >>establish addressability to a static data area (such as where LTORG might >>be), often done by a LARL instruction. >> >>Peter Relson >>z/OS Core Technology Design

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

Thanks, Dana, but I don't know where it is set either. On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Dana Mitchell wrote: > Mark, > > I have a z/OS 1.4 sysres still lying around, but I can't bring it up. > Would you happen to know where I could find the version in the SMP/E > libraries? The primary panel j

Re: SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

Mark, I have a z/OS 1.4 sysres still lying around, but I can't bring it up. Would you happen to know where I could find the version in the SMP/E libraries? The primary panel just has a variable &GGLVL and I can't find where it's set. Dana On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:53:35 -0500, Mark Pace wrote

SMP/E version in z/OS 1.4

Can someone tell me what version of SMP/E was included in z/OS 1.4?3.3 or 3.4, possibly earlier version? No amount of googling has provided the answer for me. -- The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Mainline’s positions or opinions Mark D Pace Senior Systems

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

In article <2783086669968142.wa.dlikensinfosecinc@listserv.ua.edu> you wrote: > In response to: > > Can anyone explain why the following code did not work in AMODE 64 but > > works in AMODE 31? > Yes... bit 32 of R15 on entry to your STIMER exit routine is on. In > AMODE 64 the LA of the

Re: Gizmodo article about the z13

Pommier, Rex wrote: >The link worked just fine for me. Check to see if your browser dropped extra >junk in the URL. Thanks to Rex and Alva. Copy+edit the URL and retry on Mozilla Firefox (not internet exploder) gave me the page for my sore eyes. I like that sentence on that gizmodo page: 'IBM

Re: Gizmodo article about the z13

Okay a slogan for the z13, "When the going gets Tough, the Tough get a z13!", to plagiarize an old saying, "When the going gets tough, the tough go SHOPPING!" Al Nims Systems Admin/Programmer 3 Information Technology University of Florida (352) 273-1298 -Original Message- From: IBM Mai

Re: Gizmodo article about the z13

Actually because the email system seems to have wrapped the URL, it cut off the "3722" at the end of the URL, so when you click on the link it gets the 404, but just add 3722 to the end and the link should work. Al Nims Systems Admin/Programmer 3 Information Technology University of Florida (352

Re: Gizmodo article about the z13

Elardus, The link worked just fine for me. Check to see if your browser dropped extra junk in the URL. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@L

Re: Gizmodo article about the z13

Mark Regan wrote: >http://gizmodo.com/ibms-hulking-new-mainframe-will-help-you-shop-1679413722 Above URL is not correct? Do you have any medicines for my allergy to '404 page-not-found'? Or I really need serious cut-copy-paste training 101... Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht --

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

In response to: As a reminder: AMODE 64 routines in general should not rely on the time-of-entry register 15 for addressability. LINK(X) / ATTACH(X) targets are cases for which it is "cannot" rather than "should not". The supplied code did use reg 15 for addressability: STIMERX DS0H ...

Re: z/OS 2.2 "nifties"

John McKown wrote: >Well, at least I consider them to be. Too bad I'll never see them here. I have for now problems reading those PDFs and announcements about z/OS v2.2. Will try later again. > >IBM plans to add OpenSSH to z/OS and enhance it by providing Kerberos support, >which is designed

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

In response to: > Can anyone explain why the following code did not work in AMODE 64 but works > in AMODE 31? Yes... bit 32 of R15 on entry to your STIMER exit routine is on. In AMODE 64 the LA of the ECB address propagates it into R1. Thus R1 indicates it is a cross-memory POST. In AMODE 31

Gizmodo article about the z13

http://gizmodo.com/ibms-hulking-new-mainframe-will-help-you-shop-1679413722  Thanks, Mark Regan, USNR-Ret, 1969-1991 <>< -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu w

Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

> I hope it builds the z base, but I can't see it converting many over. I doubt IBM expects anyone to convert due to SIMD. However, the SIMD functionality may encourage some to look towards IBM when considering Linux solutions. For the rest of us, compilers will generate SIMD code where appropr

Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Shane Ginnane wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 07:01:02 -0600, John McKown wrote: > > >​SIMD, to me, means instructions akin to the old vector facility on a few > >of the previous machines. > > Think MMX and SSE for your x86 boxes. They've had it since before the turn

z/OS 2.2 "nifties"

Well, at least I consider them to be. Too bad I'll never see them here. === Generation data groups (GDGs) are limited to 255 or fewer generations. z/OS V2.2 will be designed to support a new data set type, generation data group extended (GDGE), which is planned to allow you to specify that up to 9

Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 07:01:02 -0600, John McKown wrote: >​SIMD, to me, means instructions akin to the old vector facility on a few >of the previous machines. Think MMX and SSE for your x86 boxes. They've had it since before the turn of the century. Not to mention SMT. All this is old news to the

Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Binyamin Dissen wrote: > Did not find the link to the new POPs. > ​And I am eager to see it too, due to this: z/OS V2.2 XML System Services is planned to use the new vector (SIMD) instructions available on z13 processors. This function, also available on z/OS V2

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

Donald Likens wrote: >The "LEFT HALVES OF ALL REGISTERS CONTAIN ZEROS" reply was in response to Dave >Day's inquiry. He asked what the left half values of the registers are. Many thanks. I now understand. I'm just trying to catch up with all the posts on IBM-MAIN including yours. Did you resol

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

On response to: On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 05:30:17 -0600, Donald Likens wrote: You didn't quote any of the message(s) that you replied to, so you leave us guessing. That is not a good way to ask for help. -- Tom Marchant Thanks you... I will try to include the question in the response from now on.

Re: Abend S602-0 when in AMODE 64

In response to Elardus Engelbrecht question. The "LEFT HALVES OF ALL REGISTERS CONTAIN ZEROS" reply was in response to Dave Day's inquiry. He asked what the left half values of the registers are. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / sig

Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

Did not find the link to the new POPs. On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:54:41 +0800 Timothy Sipples wrote: :>IBM has now posted a great deal of information on the new IBM z13 including :>a data sheet, redbook, frequently asked questions (and answers), a preview :>of z/OS 2.2, and much more. Here's the lin

Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

Now we will see who is right: IBM or the Triskaidekaphobiae. Kees. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht Sent: 14 January, 2015 10:21 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainfra

Re: IBM Launches the z13 Mainframe

Mark Regan wrote: >http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/45808.wss   Thanks, Is it fast? Superfast, Lightspeed fast? If so I want 4 of these gems. One Prod, Dev and DRP and nr 4 to take home to play. ;-) Thanks Mark! ;-) Hmm, I hope Big Blue can sell this toy, z13 successfully despite