Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:38:09 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >how much is concealed behind the seemingly innocuous "formed from". I would say that nothing is concealed. If you look at the ESA/390 PSW and the z/Architecture PSW, the transformations are pretty obvious. Most of the bits are the

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

Regarding LPSW / LPSWE: The POp is correct. * A z/Architecture PSW is 16 bytes. * The operand of LPSWE is 16 bytes. * The operand of LPSW is 8 bytes from which a 16 byte PSW is formed. Thus you cannot provide a 16-byte PSW via LPSW. A specific case where you need LPSWE rather than

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:18:14 -0600, Jay Maynard wrote: >Basically, LPSW takes a doubleword, rearranges the bits, and makes a >quadword out of it that it then loads into the PSW. > Now that I have the citation, I see (I have the -12; I'm guessing the -13 is similar) how much is concealed behind

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 11:08 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Question and CZAM and IPL On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:56:02 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >The quoted text is on page 10-56 (p. 1072 in the PDF) of a227832d.pdf, the >J

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

Basically, LPSW takes a doubleword, rearranges the bits, and makes a quadword out of it that it then loads into the PSW. On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:09 AM Paul Gilmartin < 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:56:02 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > >The

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 11:09, Paul Gilmartin < 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:56:02 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > >The quoted text is on page 10-56 (p. 1072 in the PDF) of a227832d.pdf, > the June 2022 edition of z/Architecture Principles of

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:56:02 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >The quoted text is on page 10-56 (p. 1072 in the PDF) of a227832d.pdf, the >June 2022 edition of z/Architecture Principles of Operation, SA22-7832-13. >What is the issue with "doubleword"? > If it replaces a 16-byte PSW it should be a

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

_ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 10:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Question and CZAM and IPL On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:30:25 +, Seym

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:30:25 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Standard nomenclature for System/360, inherited through Z, is > >Halfword (16 bits) >Word (32 bits) >Doubleword (64 bits) > >Quadword (128 bits) is newer. > If you supply a citation, I'll submit an RCF.

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

[IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 10:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Question and CZAM and IPL On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 14:03:24 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >"The cur

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

Word = 4 bytes Doubleword = 8 bytes Quadword = 16 bytes Joe On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:07 AM Paul Gilmartin < 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 14:03:24 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > >"The current PSW is replaced by a 16-byte PSW > >formed from the

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 14:03:24 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >"The current PSW is replaced by a 16-byte PSW >formed from the contents of the doubleword at the >location designated by the second-operand address. >Figure 4-3 on page 4-8 illustrates the contents of the >second operand." > "doubleword"?

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

du/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 7:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Question and CZAM and IPL On Tue, 10 Jan 202

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 19:19, Paul Gilmartin < 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 23:35:57 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > >The actual PSW in the processor is 16 bytes, but the short form PSW in > storage is 8 bytes. > > > Perhaps more (search for string

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 23:35:57 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >The actual PSW in the processor is 16 bytes, but the short form PSW in storage >is 8 bytes. > Perhaps more (search for string "scrunch"): . Is LPSW capable of

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Joe Monk > Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 4:27 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Question and CZAM and IPL > > When a z/arch machine has CZAM installed, is it possible to use a short >

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

--Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Joe Monk > Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 4:27 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Question and CZAM and IPL > > When a z/arch machine has CZAM installed, is it possible to use a short > PSW to

Re: Question and CZAM and IPL

and CZAM and IPL When a z/arch machine has CZAM installed, is it possible to use a short PSW to IPL. Or, does the short PSW always become a long PSW before IPL, so it is better to use a long PSW to start with? In POPs, it says on page 3-75: "When the CZAM facility is installed, the IPL PS

Question and CZAM and IPL

When a z/arch machine has CZAM installed, is it possible to use a short PSW to IPL. Or, does the short PSW always become a long PSW before IPL, so it is better to use a long PSW to start with? In POPs, it says on page 3-75: "When the CZAM facility is installed, the IPL PSW has the short-PSW