No, my concern is that the instructions do signed compares. That was allegedly
one of the reasons for A31 rather than A32.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin
Sorry, I read "top half" as top half of the SA rather than top halves of the
registers.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Binyamin Dissen
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 2:14 PM
On 22/10/2021 9:54 pm, Colin Paice wrote:
yes - but better. It keeps improving the hot spot code to make it more
efficient.
If IBM were to ship the "saved" classes, it would make every one's system
run faster from day 1, rather than have a slow first few days.
I don't think this is true. The
On 23/10/2021 6:23 pm, David Crayford wrote:
When I ran the drag race on our full capacity enterprise class machine
Java was always faster than C++ and the GCPs run at the same speed as
the zIIPs. And Python also beat C++ and I couldn't get my head around
the veracity of that result.
Marna, super, you are just the best.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Marna WALLE
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 3:22 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Licensing a back-level z/OS
Charles,
If one
Charles,
If one wishes to obtain a z/OS release which is no longer marketed, it is
possible. The request is for an "archive", and requires some paperwork. It
usually comes through an IBM customer rep, but if you are having problems
finding that person (or the Business Partner that knows how
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 19:28:42 +, Gibney, Dave wrote:
>Seem that is this case, it would be the responsibility of the new A64 code
>(by definition, A64 code is new) to protect itself by saving before the call
>and restoring after.
>
That may not be necessary. If the AMODE 24/31 subroutine is
Seem that is this case, it would be the responsibility of the new A64 code (by
definition, A64 code is new) to protect itself by saving before the call and
restoring after.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On
> Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
> Sent: Sunday,
Not necessarily.
An A64 routine can step down to call an A31 routine which will not save top
halves and will only provide an 18 word save area.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 17:23:31 + Seymour J Metz wrote:
:>?
:>
:>If R13 points to an 18-word save area, then there is no top half to save. R13
must
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 17:30:58 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Currently no foreseeable z hardware or software supports full 64-bit
>addresses. Has there been any discussion of BXHG and BXLEG for addresses
>greater than 8 EiB?
>
I believe the BX* are RS instructions so they should properly generate
Currently no foreseeable z hardware or software supports full 64-bit addresses.
Has there been any discussion of BXHG and BXLEG for addresses greater than 8
EiB?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
--
For
?
If R13 points to an 18-word save area, then there is no top half to save. R13
must point to an appropriate save area before calling the A64 routine.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
Are there copies that don't require a logon?
Are you using UA-Parse-JS, directly or indirectly?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Support, DUNNIT SYSTEMS LTD.
Sent: Sunday,
No, the text is correct because of the ellipsis. See response from Peter.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:27:36 -0400, Eric D Rossman wrote:
>...
>I do agree that you should submit an RCF to get that section cleared up.
>When none of the multiple technical folks reading a definitive source
>(Principles of Operations) don't understand what something means in a
>given
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 08:55:00 -0400 Peter Relson wrote:
:>Therefore we conclude that this statement is not correct for the case of
:>CPU table entries addressed by real or absolute addresses.
:>(I don't know exactly what a "CPU table entry" is in this context.)
DAT-table entries when used for
By the way, I just wanted to say that I REALLY ENJOY these sorts of
conversations (technical ones) on this list.
The obnoxious sniping we are seeing between some of our members needs to
stop. I don't understand why the moderators let it continue. If it were
me, the folks doing the sniping
Yes, long (20-bit) displacements can be negative, while regular (12-bit)
displacement can not.
Eric Rossman, CISSP®
ICSF Cryptographic Security Development
z/OS Enabling Technologies
edros...@us.ibm.com
"Hobart Spitz" :
> AFAIK, RXY format instructions support negative offsets just fine.
>
>
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 08:55:00 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>...
>That post omitted this phrase from the PoP that follows shortly after:
>
>For CPU table entries that are addressed by real or absolute addresses, it
>is unpredictable
>whether the address wraps or an addressing exception is
AFAIK, RXY format instructions support negative offsets just fine.
LHY 5,-1(0,12)
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, 7:55 am Peter Relson, wrote:
> Eric R posted (from the PoP):
>
> When, during the generation of the address, an
> address is obtained that exceeds the value allowed
> for the address size
Eric R posted (from the PoP):
When, during the generation of the address, an
address is obtained that exceeds the value allowed
for the address size (2^24 - 1, 2^31 - 1, or 2^64 - 1), one of
the following two actions is taken:
1. The carry out of the high-order bit position of the
address is
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, at 11:40, Support, DUNNIT SYSTEMS LTD. wrote:
> I know very little about the technical side of anything Java.
The articles are not about Java, but the unrelated and completely
different language Javascript.
Javascript often runs in a browsr (ie client-side) but there's
I know very little about the technical side of anything Java. Those of you who
are wiser, could be please look at these 2 articles and help the rest of us to
understand how and where - if at all - this poses risks on the z/OS machine
side, as well as on the platforms connected to z/OS and to
Well
Your only serious issue would be when the calling chain includes a 64bit which
steps down to 31bit which then invokes your 64bit code, as the passed save
area will only have room for the bottom halves. You would need to store the
top halves in a local work area before initializing
I also put in a request but I also plan to contact our IBM account manager
directly to see if he can expedite the process. This would be a great deal.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 10:50 AM Kevin Monceaux wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 01:59:49PM -0400, Mark Regan wrote:
>
> > I've done that options
Thanks a lot.
I have found new important (for me) insights from this discussion, that is:
similar to the AMODE 24 to AMODE 31 transition, we will face serious
problems
with existing programs, because such logic as below, which will work
correctly
with AMODE 24/31, is simply plain wrong with
26 matches
Mail list logo
