Re: Nanosecond resolution timestamps for HLL's?

Yes, I did carefully avoid making any representation about multiple partitions. On z16, I believe that it is possible to get the same value from STCK in different partitions. If you need unique values within a z/OS sysplex, STCKE provides that. Jim Mulder -Original Message- From:

Re: Nanosecond resolution timestamps for HLL's?

You don't need to take my word that STCK on a processor is monotonic. That is stated in Principles of Operation. As I described in a prior post a week ago, " Monotonic increasing on a processor is done by delaying, when two STCKs are issued too close together on the same processor. " In othe

Re: SDWAEC1

> > Don’t challenge the list gods. Or risk meeting the same fate as Bill > Johnson. > ...wrote Bill Johnson in his "Dave Beagle" disguise. Your not fooling anyone Bill. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instruc

Re: Getting rid of a z14 zr1 - any value in the host cards?

Re: What is supported in which system, you will find the relevant information in the System z Functional Matrix https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/redp5157.html [https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/images/thumbs/redp-5157-07_x2.jpg] IBM Z Functio

Re: SDWAEC1

Who is bill johnson ? > On Feb 27, 2024, at 10:04 PM, Dave Beagle > <0525eaef6620-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Don’t challenge the list gods. Or risk meeting the same fate as Bill Johnson. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 6:30 PM, J

Re: SDWAEC1

Don’t challenge the list gods. Or risk meeting the same fate as Bill Johnson. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 6:30 PM, Joseph Reichman <05812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: I work for the IRS All the current production tax code

Re: Nanosecond resolution timestamps for HLL's?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:46:00 -0600, Jon Perryman wrote: >On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 19:50:32 +, Jim Mulder wrote: > >>STCK, which inserts a processor related value in the low order bits to meet >>the "unique with a partition" requirement. > You (carefully) avoided making any representation about m

Re: SDWAEC1

What does my job Have to do with the CBTTAPE I will spell it out in clear cut letters I WORK AS A TESTER FOR THE IRS I have Zpdt personal edition license > On Feb 27, 2024, at 6:39 PM, Tom Marchant > <000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > I very much doubt that he

Re: SDWAEC1

I very much doubt that he is changing code supplied on the CBT tape at his employer's direction or as part of his employment. -- Tom Marchant On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:49:30 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:48:18 -0600, Jon Perryman wrote: >> >>Joseph, you missed Peter's poin

Re: SDWAEC1

I work for the IRS All the current production tax code is assembler they are trying to change to Java I used to work for vendors But found myself spending a lot of time on the unemployment line thank g-d for the government You can see and down load my code when I’m finished

Re: Nanosecond resolution timestamps for HLL's?

I suspect that to know that level of detail you would have to be authorized to read the occasionally hinted-at “Red Book” version of the PoOPS that IBM never releases to anyone outside of a VERY small circle of IBM employees. I am content with the statement of monotonicity, given the well-respec

Re: Nanosecond resolution timestamps for HLL's?

And THAT is why you should strongly consider STCKF or STCKE. STCK spins in microcode until it can come up with a time greater than any time it has previously reported, consuming CPU cycles that are charged to your program. If all you need is the time of day, accurate to some very, very small i

Re: Nanosecond resolution timestamps for HLL's?

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 19:50:32 +, Jim Mulder wrote: >STCK, which inserts a processor related value in the low order bits to meet >the "unique with a partition" requirement. If there's not a simple answer, I'll take your word this is monotonic, Out of curiosity, what is the precision of STCK

Re: SDWAEC1

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:48:18 -0600, Jon Perryman wrote: > >Joseph, you missed Peter's point. Clearly you don't understand this is not >about "seems like". By ignoring several clarification requests, you caused >lots of confusing posts because you forced false speculation that would have >been av

Re: Understanding, Language and Comminication

It is an inappropriate statement. *| **Itschak Mugzach | Director | SecuriTeam Software **|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring for Z/OS, zLinux and IBM I **| * *|* *Email**: i_mugz...@securiteam.co.il **|* *Mob**: +972 522 986404 **|* *Skype**: ItschakMugzach

Understanding, Language and Comminication

I believe it was explicitly stated some years ago, but it is clear that English is not Mr. Reichman's native language. He doesn't catch many nuances. I suspect there may also be some issues that are sometimes described as location on the spectrum. I also think it unfortunate (but understandable

Re: SDWAEC1

I didn’t look at email thread But the clarification I was looking at was relevance of SDWAEC2 Everything else I was pretty clear if I wasn’t clear on this maybe it’s the way I communicated So for that I’m sorry I look back at what I wrote Thanks On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 2:48 PM Jon Perryma

Re: SDWAEC1

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 20:24:09 -0500, Joseph Reichman wrote: > Thanks and I apologize if sone of my posts made it seem like I wasn’t > listening to what you were telling me Joseph, you missed Peter's point. Clearly you don't understand this is not about "seems like". By ignoring several clarif

Re: z/osmf

Try here. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.1.0?topic=consider-zos-upgrade-workflows -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Chalk, Shelia Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 7:09 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXT] z/osmf Please Note: This email is

Re: SDWAEC1

Peter Thanks the history of this that Sam Golob asked me to update file 192 general Recovery As it was old and at the time it was written there were not any 64 bit registers I added a scenario of, if the abend occurred in a IBM service Was this too much ? Honestly couldn’t of done this

Re: Getting rid of a z14 zr1 - any value in the host cards?

If you have access to IBM Redbooks, you can look for things like the IBM z15 (8561) Technical Guide or IBM z15 (8562) Technical Guide to get information about what I/O features can the carried over from one model to the next. There are similar manuals for the z16-A01 and z16-A02. But like Ed has m

Re: SDWAEC1

If for instance the user was running amode 64 I don't think SDWASRSV has 64 bit area but if I have the correlating RB I can get the 64 bit regs from XSB SDWASRSV doesn't have them because it is 4-bytes per register. Have you looked at SDWAG64 and/or SDWAG64H? For purposes of first level diagno

z/osmf

Hello, I am wanting to download the z/osmf workflow for z/os 3.1. Can someone send me the link where I can find this? Thanks Shelia Chalk Mainframe System Programmer sch...@ssfcu.org == This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and intended solely

Re: Signing off

IBM 65? Should that be 650? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Clement Clarke <05cb6e944c87-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Se

Re: Signing off

My first computer was a 1902 in Melbourne Australia. I then went to Shell Oil and worked on an English Electric Leo. Then an IBM 65 arrived. And I wrote the first version of Jol to replace JCL in about 1968 or 1969 in PL/1 and converted it Assembler to run in a 16K (?) Partition. The ICL 1902 w

Re: Signing off

My Dad (now long since retired) worked with 1904’s and then 29xx and 39xx. (He also had IBM kit in the end – 3090 – but that isn’t really how I got into IBM.) 😊 I think there was / is a 1904 in the Science Museum in London. Cheers, Martin From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Stev