Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

>You might find forthcoming APAR OA47689 PTF UA90982 of interest. This is >likely to be on or about December 10. >It is likely that no additional information will be available until that >time. >Instead of "installation pick" it might be "installation tells the system >what is available, and t

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On 12/03/2015 12:16 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:43:38 -0600, Joel C. Ewing wrote: >> ... Because DOS/VS had native support for source and object >> libraries, those were kept online, but there was no decent native >> support to effectively submit production job JCL from libra

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

In <028001d12dea$d995b7c0$8cc12740$@mxg.com>, on 12/03/2015 at 10:51 AM, Barry Merrill said: >I can't recall if they were automatically send You had to order what you wanted. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:43:38 -0600, Joel C. Ewing wrote: > >... Because DOS/VS had native support for source and object >libraries, those were kept online, but there was no decent native >support to effectively submit production job JCL from libraries ... > Astonishing. You could RYO editor but no

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

riginal Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 10:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture l

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On 12/02/2015 11:09 PM, Ed Gould wrote: > On Dec 2, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote: > >> I just weighed the one almost-full box of some old programs and data >> cards that I have retained for show-and-tell over the years, and it is a >> little over 8 lbs. Since the cards have holes punched,

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On Dec 2, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote: I just weighed the one almost-full box of some old programs and data cards that I have retained for show-and-tell over the years, and it is a little over 8 lbs. Since the cards have holes punched, have some lighter cardboard spacers, and new c

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

In , on 12/02/2015 at 05:33 PM, J O Skip Robinson said: >One urban legend (not necessarily fiction) is an explanation for the >curious layout in EBCDIC coding. UL? It's well documented. See, e.g., IBM System/360 Principles of Operation, A22-6821-7[1], Appendix F, USASCII-8 and EBCDIC Charts,

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

ightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?] On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Barry Merrill wrote: > I think a box of 2000 IBM cards is on the order of 6 pounds, so a TON > of JCL cards would be 333 boxes, or about 666,666 card images. > > But, the useful weight is

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

In , on 12/01/2015 at 10:51 PM, Mike Schwab said: >Or a small flash drive of 64M to 2G. Are they still making those? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congres

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On > Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353 > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 1:59 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine > hardware architecture level?] > > Re: "ton" of JCL, at least one large shop of

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 8:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?] > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:02:01 -0600, Da

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:44:38 +, J O Skip Robinson wrote: >I'm grateful to this thread for the news that MVCIN lives on. When it >disappeared on the 3090--talk about unexpected S0C1--I did a brief RIP and >never looked for it again. MVCIN allowed you to reverse a string and use TRT >to find

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:44 AM, J O Skip Robinson wrote: > I'm grateful to this thread for the news that MVCIN lives on. When it > disappeared on the 3090--talk about unexpected S0C1--I did a brief RIP and > never looked for it again. MVCIN allowed you to reverse a string and use > TRT to find s

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

U] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 6:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? In , on 12/01/2015 at 10:57 PM, J O Skip Robinson said: >MVCIN was indeed a useful instru

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

In , on 12/01/2015 at 10:57 PM, J O Skip Robinson said: >MVCIN was indeed a useful instruction. I encountered it (IIRC) on a >4381. I assumed that, like typical new instructions, it would stick >around for the duration. I was later shocked to discover that it had >been abandoned on a siding so

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

External):Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?] On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:02:01 -0600, Dana Mitchell wrote: >On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:03:59 +, J O Skip Robinson wrote: > >>(This whole season feels like Friday.)

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:02:01 -0600, Dana Mitchell wrote: >On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:03:59 +, J O Skip Robinson wrote: > >>(This whole season feels like Friday.) A doughnut, on the other hand, >>requires the hole for its very definition. The hole supplies no mass or >>nutritional value, but withou

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:03:59 +, J O Skip Robinson wrote: >(This whole season feels like Friday.) A doughnut, on the other hand, requires >the hole for its very definition. The hole supplies no mass or nutritional >value, but without it the thing is not a doughnut. By contrast a punch card

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On Dec 1, 2015, at 10:54 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: Correction. 16 IBM 350 disk drives, each weighing a ton. Is that what Tennessee Ernie Ford was singing about? Yea but what about the power requirements and the architectural building requirements? Ed ---

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

-Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >> Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353 >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 1:59 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: St

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

t; From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353 > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 1:59 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine > hardware

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 1 December 2015 at 17:57, J O Skip Robinson wrote: > MVCIN was indeed a useful instruction. I encountered it (IIRC) on a 4381. > I assumed that, like typical new instructions, it would stick around for > the duration. I was later shocked to discover that it had been abandoned on > a siding som

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Dec 1, 2015, at 3:19 PM, J O Skip Robinson wrote: Timeframe was 1980 plus or minus. I was a true novice sysprog and kept an arm's length from OS innards. It was during that two-year gig that MVS/SP was announced, so not likely available just yet. I only remember being impressed with the

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

Paul: A Bank I used to work for had "tons" of credit card (remember the days when they issued a receipt w/carbon paper and a "card" in the back ? They read them in (scanned?) I never saw that part of the operation other than they wheeled carts of cards through the computer room. I *vague

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Barry Merrill wrote: > I think a box of 2000 IBM cards is on the order of 6 pounds, > so a TON of JCL cards would be 333 boxes, or about 666,666 > card images. > > But, the useful weight is zero, since we only use the holes. > > Barry > > Since this is a thread we

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

SERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Barry Merrill > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 12:42 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: (External):Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward > way to determine hardware architecture level?] > > I think a box of 2000

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Barry Merrill Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 12:42 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?] I think a box of 2000 IBM cards is on the order

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:05 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? On 12/01/2015 10:27 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:52:05 +0

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 12/01/2015 10:27 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:52:05 +, Bob Shannon wrote: Amdahl responded by shipping some code that was loaded early in IPL to accommodate the new instructions SE and SP Assist. They trapped the abend in the FLIH. I remember it well. That's SE Assis

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

ay, December 01, 2015 7:27 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? That's SE Assist. And it led to the design on the 580 series of computers that provided a third state of operation called (IIRC) System state. T

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

(External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:52:05 +, Bob Shannon wrote: >> Amdahl responded by shipping some code that was loaded early in IPL >>to accommodate the new instructions > >SE and SP Assist. They trap

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:41:58 -0600, Barry Merrill wrote: >I think a box of 2000 IBM cards is on the order of 6 pounds, >so a TON of JCL cards would be 333 boxes, or about 666,666 >card images. > >But, the useful weight is zero, since we only use the holes. > But as XKCD once said, "Four boxes of p

Re: What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

t's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?] Re: "ton" of JCL, at least one large shop of my prior acquaintance (20 or so years ago) had over 250,000 members in the production applications JCL libraries. Not sure how much of

What's a "ton" of JCL? [was:RE: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?]

of data as well. I think that counts as a "ton" or 2 . . . :) Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 9:30 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforw

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:52:05 +, Bob Shannon wrote: >> Amdahl responded by shipping some code that was loaded early in IPL to >>accommodate the new instructions > >SE and SP Assist. They trapped the abend in the FLIH. I remember it well. That's SE Assist. And it led to the design on the 580

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

>How about compiling at all ARCHLEVELs, then letting the installation >pick which level to install. Have the install program issue a warning >if the current machine does not meet the ARCHLEVEL selected. You might find forthcoming APAR OA47689 PTF UA90982 of interest. This is likely to be on or a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:36:37 -0600, Kirk Wolf wrote: >And, &SYSALVL, could only give you information about the machine that you >were assembling on, not the one that you were running on. No. &SYSALVL indicates the architecture level of the machine, as specified at IPL time in the LOADxx member.

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

> Amdahl responded by shipping some code that was loaded early in IPL to > accommodate the new instructions SE and SP Assist. They trapped the abend in the FLIH. I remember it well. Bob Shannon Rocket Software Rocket Software, Inc. and subsidiaries ■ 77 Fourth Av

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Ed Gould wrote: On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Charles Mills wrote: SNIP- With the advent of facility and function indications in z/Architecture, the technique of trial execution should be avoided - particularly if a workload may be relocated to

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Mike Schwab wrote: >How about compiling at all ARCHLEVELs, then letting the installation >pick which level to install. Have the install program issue a warning >if the current machine does not meet the ARCHLEVEL selected. I like the core of your idea. All levels might be too much to manage (7 mode

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Charles Mills wrote: SNIP- With the advent of facility and function indications in z/Architecture, the technique of trial execution should be avoided - particularly if a workload may be relocated to another system in

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

er 29, 2015 11:44 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > > I confess to not having slogged through this thread, but from the beginning > I've wondered why no one has suggested the static system symbol &a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

In , on 11/30/2015 at 11:44 PM, J O Skip Robinson said: >When I was a novice sysprog, my shop had an Amdahl. MVS at that >time predated 'system product'. (Way back.) IBM shipped a new >level of MVS that executed instructions not present our Amdahl. Are you sure that you aren't thinking of M

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:44 PM, J O Skip Robinson wrote: I'm reaching back a long way to stretch the notion of 'straightforward', but here goes. When I was a novice sysprog, my shop had an Amdahl. MVS at that time predated 'system product'. (Way back.) IBM shipped a new level of MVS that execu

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

start. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. Craig Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 4:24 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Then there&

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 15Nov30:1354-0600, Ed Gould wrote: > On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: > > >Charles Mills wrote: > >--SNIP > >>Shipping the source is utterly out of the question, > > > >Of course, you have to be crazy if you

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Interesting. That makes sense. I've got a better method anyway, but you know what IBM says now? I just happened to run into this a few minutes ago. (From the Nov. 2012 PoOp) Programming Note: Prior to the introduction of z/Architecture, determination of the presence of a facility was often accompl

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Sorry. MSUs are *incredibly* important to some (most?) customers. They are a major buy/no-buy decider. I cannot ship z900 code and shrug my shoulders about performance on a z13.

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

er 30, 2015 2:34 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles: Then the issue *IS* correct and *IS* appropriate. I am suggesting that if the discussion had started out with

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I don't know what your company sells and wonder why anyone would pay "extra" for a few seconds of cpu savings gain. I suspect you (or your management) is making a mountain out of a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

alf Of Ed Gould Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles: On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Charles Mills wrote: Sorry. MSUs are *incredibly* important to some (most?) customers. They

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Ed Gould > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:49 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > > Charles: > > On Nov 30, 201

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

ssage- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:49 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I don't know what your company sells and wonder

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

ist [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles: On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > Sorry. MSUs are *incredibly*

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: Charles Mills wrote: --SNIP Shipping the source is utterly out of the question, Of course, you have to be crazy if you give away your bread and butter source for all the g

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

es -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM- m...@listserv.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:22 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles, I have been watchin

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

In <1a619cdc-a055-40ec-9821-4337587d6...@copper.net>, on 11/29/2015 at 08:17 PM, Stevet said: >This is why you have specialty routines that you load and if I >remember correctly, IDENTIFY. You don't need IDENTIFY unless you want to use system assisted linkage to a name other then the name you

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Charles Mills wrote: >Sorry. MSUs are *incredibly* important to some (most?) customers. They are a >major buy/no-buy decider. Indeed. Other questions customers also asked to vendors (from what I know and found out over the years): - How easy is it to install? With SMP/E (increasingly importa

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

iously, thanks for your input. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:22 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? C

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

John McKown wrote: >​... Such as IAZYREG, ... I believe it should be renamed to LazyRegs... ;-) >​Of course, my code is "weird" in that I cause HLASM to flag the instruction: > LG R10,DOUBLE >because, in my case, it should be: > LG R10_64,DOUBLE​ >​And so on. Interesting. That is a goo

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Bob Shannon wrote: > >For others not really familiar to assembler programs, in Kirk listing > there is a line YREGS. > > >YREGS <-- That is a list of register value declarations/constants. > You will have to provide your own list. > > YREGS is shipped in SYS1

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Bob Shannon wrote: >YREGS is shipped in SYS1.MACLIB. It only provides equates for GPRs. Duh, yes, you're right of course. Thanks for curing my blue Monday ignorance! Much appreciated. And there is SYS1.MACLIB(IAZYREG), which includes both GPR and Access Registers. Groete / Greetings Elardus

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

>For others not really familiar to assembler programs, in Kirk listing there is >a line YREGS. >YREGS <-- That is a list of register value declarations/constants. You will have to provide your own list. YREGS is shipped in SYS1.MACLIB. It only provides equates for GPRs. Bob Shannon Rocket

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Steve: I don't think I asked of him anything a customer wouldn't ask. Frankly if he would have responded with a 10 percent increase that would have been good enough (for me as a non customer). The bottom line are we talking about 1 second or 5000 seconds savings that would be good enough

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 11/29/2015 09:56 PM, Ed Gould wrote: On Nov 29, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Stevet wrote: Then supply an object deck that has the "special" instructions with instructions to relink the problem program. Put the burden on the user. BTW he has not informed us what the timing difference is. I submit th

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On Nov 29, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Stevet wrote: This is why you have specialty routines that you load and if I remember correctly, IDENTIFY. What is being described is part of the joys of being an ISV. Imagine, back in the day, of providing code that was sensitive to JES2 releases and Maint cha

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Perhaps it's too obvious, but the z/OS release level provides certain information. Specifically: 1. If you're on z/OS 1.6 or a higher 1.x release, you know you're on a z900/z800 or higher and cannot be on a 31-bit machine. 2. If you're on z/OS 2.1, you know you're on a z9 or higher. 3. If you're o

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

This is why you have specialty routines that you load and if I remember correctly, IDENTIFY. What is being described is part of the joys of being an ISV. Imagine, back in the day, of providing code that was sensitive to JES2 releases and Maint changes. My headache w/ ACS/WYLBUR while also han

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

29, 2015 12:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I get it. There are different meanings of 'architecture level'. You need more granularity. Not knowing the ins and outs of the various control blocks suggeste

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

ssage- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of J O Skip Robinson Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 12:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I get it. There are different meanin

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

riginal Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 12:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I am not a LOADXX guru but

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

≫> My boss wants something more user-friendly than a S0C1. Like a S0C1:) ??? Chris Hoelscher Technology Architect, Database Infrastructure Services Technology Solution Services : humana.com 123 East Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 Humana.com (502) 714-8615, (502) 476-2538 email to lists...@list

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? I confess to not having slogged through this thread, but from the beginning I've wondered why no one has suggested the static system symbol &SYSALVL. System symbols can be queried from

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

les Mills Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 10:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Two corrections: 1. At several points in this thread I think I may have said "facility bits in the CVT." I wuz of co

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

IN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > Charles Mills has a reason. But part of that reason is that he's > running ... Right. And dealing with imperfect co-workers dealing with imperfect information from sales and pre-sales and a

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

son Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 7:04 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? What is still missing is a reason why someone should want to do this sort of check. Only with that information could one answer a question such as "should

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

What is still missing is a reason why someone should want to do this sort of check. Only with that information could one answer a question such as "should we also check CVTVEF?". Checking CVTVEF will tell you if the vector extension facility is present *and* that that operating system is prepar

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Kirk Wolf wrote: >FYI, I noticed that there are some cut/paste errors in the comments (only) for >ARCH(7) and ARCH(8). Nevermind, real Assembler programmers don't bother with comments. ;-) "Comments? What is that new-fangled thing? They're just making my source listings 'dirty'!" ;-D ;-D ;-D

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

ilto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Kirk Wolf > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 3:12 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? > > Here's a brute force assembler translation of my quick decoding

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 11/28/2015 06:12:04 PM: > * Test ARCH(6) > * long-displacement facility > TMFaclByte2,FaclLongDisplacement > BNO EXIT > LAR15,6 ARCH(6) I would recommend using FaclLongDisplacementHP instead of FaclLongDispl

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

or's z890! > > Charles > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Kirk Wolf > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 3:12 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

t: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Here's a brute force assembler translation of my quick decoding of doc for "ARCHLEVEL" in the z/OS V2R2 C/C++ UG. NB: It would be great if someone could get IBM to confirm that these are the correct FACL bits described

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Here's a brute force assembler translation of my quick decoding of doc for "ARCHLEVEL" in the z/OS V2R2 C/C++ UG. NB: It would be great if someone could get IBM to confirm that these are the correct FACL bits described by the ARCHLEVEL doc. It returns "9" as expected on the z196 machine that I am

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

>Are there other functions also absent when z/OS is >running as a guest under z/VM? >If so, where is that documented? I'm sure the answer to the first is "yes", and I don't know the answer to the second. But if you were to turn the question around and ask "where is it documented what you can r

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

On 26 November 2015 at 09:47, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: > Peter Relson wrote: >>Further, it [Transactional Execution] is not available on any z/OS release if >>z/OS is running under VM. > > Very interesting. Are there other functions also absent when z/OS is running > as a guest under z/VM? La

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

mber 26, 2015 6:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? To answer your question directly: no there is no such way. Could there be, in the future? Sure. If z/OS base control program were to provide it, it might not be the compi

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Peter Relson wrote: >Further, it is not available on any z/OS release if z/OS is running under VM. Very interesting. Are there other functions also absent when z/OS is running as a guest under z/VM? If so, where is that documented? Many thanks for your excellent posts. I value them all! TIA

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

I wanted to add that the list of facilities mentioned in one of the posts >ARCH(10) (xC12) execution-hint facility, the load-and-trap >facility, the miscellaneous-instruction-extension facility, and the >transactional-execution facility. leads to some interesting points. The availability of an i

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

To answer your question directly: no there is no such way. Could there be, in the future? Sure. If z/OS base control program were to provide it, it might not be the compiler ARCH value but might be the machine generation number (which happens to be +2 over the compiler ARCH level) -- e.g., z13

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

rame Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Charles, I agree that there should be a compiler or LE API to do this.

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Charles, I agree that there should be a compiler or LE API to do this. If not: ARCH levels actually map to a set of required "Facilities" (the Principles of Operation term). You can test at the facility bits in the PSAE, mapped by IHAFACL. Then you could use the documentation on ARCH in the com

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

nal Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bob Shannon Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 11:33 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? We have one product that that compile

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

> How is your initial module working to determine the ARCH level? If you can't > disclose it, it is fine It's not my product and I haven’t looked at the code. However, it's simple enough to build a table of processor types with the corresponding ARCH/MACH level. Bob Shannon Rocket Software ==

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Bob Shannon wrote: >We have one product that that compiles their code for each architectural >level. The initial module is determines the hardware and loads the remainder >of the code to match the processor How is your initial module working to determine the ARCH level? If you can't disclose

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

We have one product that that compiles their code for each architectural level. The initial module is determines the hardware and loads the remainder of the code to match the processor > but one or two pesky customers want to run on an older machine So you are saying that all of your customers

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 11:23 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level? Why not compile with a level that will work on all machines on which you will run? If you compile with ZS-2 you can run back to a z990. The bad news is

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Why not compile with a level that will work on all machines on which you will run? If you compile with ZS-2 you can run back to a z990. The bad news is that your code will be optimized for a z990. Bob Shannon Rocket Software Rocket Software, Inc. and subsidiaries

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

her problem. I will post that. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 10:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Straightforward way to determine hardw

Re: Straightforward way to determine hardware architecture level?

Charles Mills wrote: >I just got on offline reply. Amazing you get help so fast! Good for you! >To clarify, I mean for a program to make this determination programmatically, >presumably by an LE call or z/OS control block chaining. Care to tell us what you could use? By peeking in an address

  1   2   >