> As usual, OCO makes an external judgment all but impossible. We are > at the mercy of an IBM development group's not necessarily > disinterested judgment. > > Would it not be possible, without breaching OCO, to provide a more > quantitative, confidence-inspiring statement than ". . . there would > be considerable cost to convert all of these to ESAIR."
I see that I said ESAR->ESAIR when I meant SSAR->SSAIR. Also, there is PT->PTI to consider. Note that the "xxI" form of these instructions use the high order half of a register, so there may be additional complexity using them in code in situations where the high order half of the register was expected to be preserved. Also, if the program still intends to support the z800 and z900 processors, it must be dual pathed, since those processors do not implement the ASN-and-LX Reuse Facility. And dual pathing is also necessary if the program intends to support a release older than z/OS 1.6. I do not know to what extent any of those consideration might apply to DM2 or MQ. I do not have DB2 or MQ internals knowledge, or code access, so I cannot provide a more quantitative statement. I am just paraphrasing the kind of responses I have gotten when I have asked the question. I am also not in a position to evaluate the priority of this requirement vs. the other requirements for these products. Customers for whom this is an issue should (as always) consider submitting requirements through the usual venues. Customer requirements have considerably more influence over product development priorities than I have (especially with regard to products owned by a different division of IBM than the one which employs me). Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
