In f031d213-4695-4551-bd15-96e97b8d8...@yahoo.com, on 07/22/2012
at 11:29 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com said:
I was aware of the hardware on the machines, since my late father was
a FE on them. Didn't really know anything about the opsys or
programming languages.
There were two OS's;
My dad worked on the 1108 II, I think at Ft. Harrison in Indy
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Jul 21, 2012, at 9:26 AM, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:
The Unisys 1108, a (36-bit) word machine, was originally the UNIVAC
1108 I (circa 1965) and the UNIVAC 1108 II (circa 1968); and
In c4c6c378-b640-43a1-88d5-7c79f3bf0...@yahoo.com, on 07/20/2012
at 08:08 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com said:
Who did the inherit the 1108 from ? My dad worked for Unisys on the
1108sdude
Unisys was a merger of Burroughs and UNIVAC; They kept the B6500 line
from Burroughs and the
In 1342898015.24312.yahoomail...@web164504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com, on
07/21/2012
at 12:13 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com said:
I wasnt sure if the 1108 had come from RCA or Buroughs
The 1108 dates back to the old Remington-Rand or Sperry Rand, not to
the RCA EDP acquisition. It's possible
I was aware of the hardware on the machines, since my late father was a FE on
them. Didn't really know anything about the opsys or programming languages. So
the history is very interesting
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Jul 22, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
The Unisys 1108, a (36-bit) word machine, was originally the UNIVAC
1108 I (circa 1965) and the UNIVAC 1108 II (circa 1968); and UNIVAC
was at that time a division of Sperry Rand.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA, 01721 - USA
On 7/20/12, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Shmuel,
Who did the
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:43:45 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
Is this because Unisys is deficient in conformance to the standard,
or because IBM's implementation contains an extension to the
standard?
No, it's because UNIVAC used ones complement arithmetic on most of its
lines, Including
/
From: John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
The Unisys 1108, a (36-bit) word machine, was originally the UNIVAC
1108 I (circa 1965) and the UNIVAC 1108 II (circa 1968
21, 2012 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:43:45 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
Is this because Unisys is deficient in conformance to the standard,
or because IBM's implementation contains an extension to the
standard?
No, it's because UNIVAC used ones
In 9307538697441482.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
07/19/2012
at 09:22 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Is this because Unisys is deficient in conformance to the standard,
or because IBM's implementation contains an extension to the
standard?
No, it's because UNIVAC
Shmuel,
Who did the inherit the 1108 from ? My dad worked for Unisys on the
1108sdude
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
shmuel+...@patriot.net wrote:
In 9307538697441482.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
07/19/2012
at
(John Gilmore wrote)
A little presumptuously perhaps, I shall reply for 'someone' He or
she would appear to be a soul mate.
The remark about floating-point that Mr Hermannsfeldt attributes to
Knuth are relevant to HFP and, perhaps, BFP. Their timing moots any
relevance to Cowlishaw's
In 5001ef16.8000...@t-online.de, on 07/15/2012
at 12:13 AM, Bernd Oppolzer bernd.oppol...@t-online.de said:
I don't think that there is any cultural or philosophical
difference between mainframe or distributed/workstation
developers, given the same number of years of experience and
skill
In
CAE1XxDE7yYDyoQaTGFNhxp1tSiVHnK+i8GTQptXD6=8bgfh...@mail.gmail.com,
on 07/14/2012
at 08:08 AM, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com said:
Integer arithmetic should never be done with anything but binary
integers.
Your reasoning is correct for two's complement machines, e.g., z, but
is incorrect
John P. Baker wrote:
A positive value is identified by a sign encoded as --
X'A'
X'C' (Preferred)
X'E'
X'F'
A negative value is identified by a sign encoded as --
X'B'
X'D' (Preferred)
The preferred encoding are always generated by packed decimal instructions,
The
I had a similar story. On a 370/138 at an auto insurance company, the rating
program (vendor supplied) would immediately eat the machine.
In those days, there was an actual CPU meter on the console. Whenever this job
would run the meter pegged for the duration.
Basic logic was input pre-process
Mr Hermannsfeldt writes:
begin extract
Now, it is true that DFP helps with some of those problems, but when
programming in a high-level language one generally doesn't know what
kind of floating point will be used. Some, like HFP, give a truncated
quotient on divide (except on the 360/91), others
At 14:49 -0400 on 07/15/2012, John P. Baker wrote about Re: COBOL
packed decimal:
In the IBM z/Architecture Principles of Operation, publication number
SA22-7832-08, on page 8-2 it states that X'F' is an alternate encoding for a
positive sign. However, in the programming note to figure 8-1
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
Excellent! Thank you very much!
Subtle is right! :-)
Negative zero, huh? Must
Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
Excellent! Thank you very much!
Subtle is right! :-)
Negative zero, huh? Must be that new math, thing. :-)
Frank
From: Dan Skomsky @ Home poodles
zero. I didn't
write it, I don't remember my precise fix.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
decimal
Excellent! Thank you very much!
Subtle is right! :-)
Negative zero, huh? Must be that new math, thing. :-)
Frank
From: Dan Skomsky @ Home poodles...@sbcglobal.net
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: COBOL packed
.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
Excellent! Thank you very much!
Subtle is right! :-)
Negative
Tom Ross's Share presentation on COBOL performance is excellent.
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Jul 14, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Chris Mason chrisma...@belgacom.net wrote:
John
Integer arithmetic should never be done with anything but binary integers.
What never?
One excuse might be
What I was saying was simply that integer values, those in the sequence
. . . -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, . . .
should always be binary. Bean counters, perform indices, and the like
obviously fall in this category. If you are counting something,
beans, iterations,
There is one thing I like very much about packed decimal data,
that is its redundancy.
With packed decimal data, the probability that the use of an
un-initialized variable will lead to a run time error (0C7 abend)
is very high. Take a nine digit decimal variable - the probability
that it
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
There is one thing I like very much about packed decimal data, that is its
redundancy.
With packed decimal data
only the two (2) preferred sign representations).
John P. Baker
NGSSA, LLC
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL packed
A little presumptuously perhaps, I shall reply for 'someone' He or
she would appear to be a soul mate.
The remark about floating-point that Mr Hermannsfeldt attributes to
Knuth are relevant to HFP and, perhaps, BFP. Their timing moots any
relevance to Cowlishaw's DFP.
Moreover, they arev not
On 7/14/12, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:
A little presumptuously perhaps, I shall reply for 'someone' He or
she would appear to be a soul mate.
The remark about floating-point that Mr Hermannsfeldt attributes to
Knuth are relevant to HFP and, perhaps, BFP. Their timing moots any
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:39:04 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
Some years ago this situation changed dramatically. Mike
Cowlishaw---he who designed REXX---devised what is now ANSI decimal
floating point (DFP). DFP behaves consistently in ways that do not
surprise accountants. (All three
Ceretain of Bernd Oppolzer's concerns are addressed in the designs of
both ANSI BFP and ANSI DFP and in their zArchitecture implementations.
Ad hoc schemes are in fact replaced by hardware implemented ones.
One of their most interesting features is the support they provide for
non-standard
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM, John P. Baker jba...@ngssallc.com wrote:
By the way, a 5-byte field capable of containing a 9-digit packed decimal
value has a 0.55% probability of containing a valid packed decimal value
(taking into consideration all six (6) valid sign representations) and a
At 10:22 -0600 on 07/14/2012, Steve Comstock wrote about Re: COBOL
packed decimal:
I think he's saying keep amounts in pennies as binary fields.
Convert to dollars + decimal point + cents when you display
these fields.
That works for addition and subtraction. It gets more complex when
you
COBOL code
77 ws-num-packed pic S9(9) packed-decimal.
add 2 to ws-num-packed
Generated assembler:
14
ADD
00036A GN=16 EQU
*
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Frank Swarbrick
frank.swarbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
COBOL code
77 ws-num-packed pic S9(9) packed-decimal.
add 2 to ws-num-packed
Generated assembler:
14 ADD
00036A GN=16EQU *
00036A FA40 8008 A02C
Zero and add pack.
ITschak
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Frank Swarbrick frank.swarbr...@yahoo.com
wrote:
COBOL code
77 ws-num-packed pic S9(9) packed-decimal.
add 2 to ws-num-packed
Generated assembler:
14
ADD
00036A GN=16EQU
*
/370.
HTH
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Itschak Mugzach
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
Zero and add pack.
ITschak
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL packed decimal
Zero and add pack.
ITschak
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Frank Swarbrick frank.swarbr...@yahoo.com
wrote:
COBOL code
77 ws-num-packed pic S9(9) packed-decimal.
add 2 to ws
39 matches
Mail list logo
