Re: AMODE 32

What about 33-bit and 25-bit addressing modes? Can we discuss it? (I couldn't resist) -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland == Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej wiadomości: - powiadom nas o tym w mailu zwrotnym (dziękujemy!), - u

Re: AMODE 32

On 2019-04-06 16:19, Joel C. Ewing wrote: Not worth the effort and risk for a measly doubling of virtual address space. In fact, given the availability of 64-bit addressing, the 2 GB difference between 31-bit and 32-bit is just a blip. It's like attaching a garden shed to the Empire State Bui

Re: AMODE 32

Another reason for separating CICS workloads is security. CICS transaction separation can only really be achieved through separate address spaces. Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw | Security Lead | RSM Partners Ltd   Web:  www.rsmpartners.com ‘Dance like no one is watching. Encrypt like everyon

Re: AMODE 32

I dodged the “why multiple CICS regions?” aspect as this thread has already got complex enough. The “CICS topology” topic is wonderfully complex, of course, and it’s one of the things my workshops with customers delve into. I would say “QR TCB Constraint” is still a live issue, but less of one. C

Re: AMODE 32

It used to be, most of a single CICS region other than some DB2-related work was single threaded.  Don't know if that has improved in the last five years, but am sure there must still be significant parts of CICS that are single thread.   The only way to give more CPU to a CICS that was CPU-constra

Re: AMODE 32

Actually, they started under MVS with 8MiB user memory or so. Plus splitting different applications into their own regions to isolate, close certain partition at specified times for batch and backup processing, etc. On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:55 AM Paul Edwards wrote: > > Hi Mike. > > I'm trying

Re: AMODE 32

At minimum, a recompile/reassemble. Takes machine time and programmer time. Amode 32 doesn't exist so I'm not worried about that. Joe On Fri, Apr 5, 2019, 4:03 PM Paul Edwards wrote: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 15:55:42 -0400, Joe Monk wrote: > > >> I'm trying to understand why some sites > >> are r

Re: AMODE 32

Unknowable and various ((Cobol, HLASM, pl/1, RPG 😊 )😊 > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Paul Edwards > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 1:03 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: AMODE 32 > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019

Re: AMODE 32

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 15:55:42 -0400, Joe Monk wrote: >> I'm trying to understand why some sites >> are running multiple CICS regions because >> 2 GiB is not enough. Yet they haven't >> gone to AM64..." > > Who is going to pay for programmer time to convert applications to 64-bit? > The cost of runn

Re: AMODE 32

"I'm trying to understand why some sites are running multiple CICS regions because 2 GiB is not enough. Yet they haven't gone to AM64..." Who is going to pay for programmer time to convert applications to 64-bit? The cost of running mulitple 2GB regions is less than the cost to convert the applica

Re: AMODE 32

No, no, no, he is NOT trying to solve or prove anything. He is merely trying to save the world just like his namesake from around 2000 years ago. History is repeating itself again in that he is not having much success with his contemporaries. Neither the ordinary folks (IBM-MAINers) nor the Roma

Re: AMODE 32

Hi Mike. I'm trying to understand why some sites are running multiple CICS regions because 2 GiB is not enough. Yet they haven't gone to AM64. I want to know if they would be interested in going to AM32 instead, if it were available. Can you elaborate? If AM32 was more practical for them, they wou

Re: AMODE 32

Paul Edwards wrote: >I was thinking that z/Arch and z/OS could be updated to support AMODE 32. I am not sure what you want to solve or prove, but I think you should startup a new company and then invent/patent a brand new mainframe which can address all your needs. If you have a good business c

Re: AMODE 32

If you are wanting to run in AM64 and use 32 bit constants, that is certainly possible. You will then be limited to incrementing registers by 4GiB or less. Just establishing addressability will need to set all 64 bits. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:40 PM Paul Edwards wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 19

Re: AMODE 32

I’m not quite sure why you’re asking me this. However, there are ones that would break compatibility and ones where there is no pressing need to change. Sometimes the same thing. :-) One has to view virtual storage as an evolution/journey - and some destinations aren’t worth the candle. The “jour

Re: AMODE 32

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Edwards Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:31 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AMODE 32 On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:42:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: >Sounds like a pretty narrow range of appli

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 19:32:01 +, Martin Packer wrote: >They will be (running 64-bit). However, apart from Db2*, much of their >virtual storage components can't tolerate being above the bar. Which virtual storage components can't tolerate being above the bar, and why is that and what would nee

Re: AMODE 32

s.apple.com/gb/podcast/mainframe-performance-topics/id1127943573?mt=2 Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA From: Paul Edwards To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 04/04/2019 19:37 Subject: Re: AMODE 32 Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:59:03 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: >A lot of installations run multiple CICS / IMS / DB2 regions because >one or two 2GiB regions is not nearly enough. Why are they not running as 64-bit? BFN. Paul. -- For I

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:14:48 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Existing programs will be using VL, Not always. It is relatively rare to take a variable number of parameters. > so you're talking a total rewrite to exploit AMODE32. No, fairly minor changes, not a rewrite. > How is that short-term fi

Re: AMODE 32

Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Paul Edwards Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 1:56 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AMODE 32 On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:45:27 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> I don't agree. Existing applications can be >> modified to be 32-bit cle

Re: AMODE 32

A lot of installations run multiple CICS / IMS / DB2 regions because one or two 2GiB regions is not nearly enough. JAVA does offer an option to run from 2GiB to 8GiB using 4 bit pointers that are shifted 3 bits to a multiple of 8 bytes. Almost no one uses this because the shifting slow down every

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:45:27 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> I don't agree. Existing applications can be >> modified to be 32-bit clean > >Only if the never use storage above the line for parameters. Or they don't use VL, the same requirement that AM64 has. BFN. Paul. --

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:31:16 -0500, Paul Edwards wrote: >Because it invalidates all old hardware. An >AM32 program can still run as AM31 on old >hardware, or even AM24 on very old >hardware. Oh, so you want to enhance the architecture on "very old hardware". And make a corresponding enhancement t

Re: AMODE 32

eve that doubling the size of the address space will be enough for long. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Paul Edwards Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 7:19 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSER

Re: AMODE 32

I suggest we all stop feeding the Bear! ::DISCLAIMER:: --

Re: AMODE 32

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen > Sent: 04 April, 2019 13:43 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: AMODE 32 > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 06:19:50 -0500 Paul Edwards >

Re: AMODE 32

t on behalf of Paul Edwards Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AMODE 32 On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:46:59 -0400, Don Poitras wrote: > When you brought this up a year ago, I don't think you convinced anyone > that this was a useful change or

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:31:16 -0500 Paul Edwards wrote: :>On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:42:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: :>>Sounds like a pretty narrow range of applications, where the existing above :>>the line is not enough, but an extra 2G will be enough forever. :>It's sometimes not a matter of

Re: AMODE 32

" As far as I am aware, if you do a: CALL xxx,VL to set the high bit to signify end of parameter list, then if the target is operating in AM64, it will fail with a S0C4." Nope. You will get this error: 12,*** IHB280 VL INVALID WITH 8_BYTE_ENTRY_PLIST Joe On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:18 AM Paul E

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:42:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: >Sounds like a pretty narrow range of applications, where the existing above >the line is not enough, but an extra 2G will be enough forever. It's sometimes not a matter of "not enough" so much as "capability". E.g. a 32-bit editor is ca

Re: AMODE 32

I'm sorry I don't understand your technical point. Could you rephrase? As far as I am aware, if you do a: CALL xxx,VL to set the high bit to signify end of parameter list, then if the target is operating in AM64, it will fail with a S0C4. BFN. Paul. On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:12:24 +, Gene Hu

Re: AMODE 32

Again I am sorry but at this point I believe you cannot issue a CALL for a program in 64 bits. I do nothing when switching back and forth with my CALLs. In a message dated 4/4/2019 11:09:16 AM Venezuela Standard Time, mutazi...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:03:43 +, Gene Hudders

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:03:43 +, Gene Hudders wrote: > I'm sorry, but I don't have to make any changes > to my 31 bit programs using CALLs and using > 64-bit addressing. We have lots of programs > doing both AM31 and AM64 with the only change > is the instructions to change the addressing mode.

Re: AMODE 32

I'm sorry, but I don't have to make any changes to my 31 bit programs using CALLs and using 64-bit addressing. We have lots of programs doing both AM31 and AM64 with the only change is the instructions to change the addressing mode. Do you realize how many user programs that have CALLs embedded

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 09:33:46 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote: >>The BSM instruction can use bit x'4000 ' >>to get/set AM32. > >No, it can't, for compatibility reasons. What are you referring to? I don't see any compatibility problem. >>This introduces a 1 GiB >>restriction where the module should

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:16 +, Gene Hudders wrote: > How is the system going to interpret the X'80' > used to indicate the end of a CALL parameter list. This is one of the 32-bit changes, the same as needs to be done if using AM64. There is a set of changes that need to be done when going f

Re: AMODE 32

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:17:46 -0500, Paul Edwards wrote: >I was thinking that z/Arch and z/OS could >be updated to support AMODE 32. Not again. You brought up something similar last year. It was a ridiculous idea then and it still is. You were told then that your proposal would be rejected, and

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:17 AM Binyamin Dissen wrote: > My guess is the OP is married to 4 byte pointers. You've met his wife? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv

Re: AMODE 32

is list wants to spend a lot of time on something extremely unlikely to happen. :> :>Cheers, :> :>-Original Message- :>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Edwards :>Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:23 AM :>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU :>Subject: Re:

Re: AMODE 32

- :>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Edwards :>Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:23 AM :>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU :>Subject: Re: AMODE 32 :> :>On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:19:03 +, Martin Packer wrote: :> :>>OK, I'll try... :>> :>>.

Re: AMODE 32

+1 Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@listserv..ua.edu] On Behalf Of Don Poitras Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:47 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AMODE 32 In article <8891162166296907.wa.mutazilahgmail@listserv.ua.edu&g

Re: AMODE 32

@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AMODE 32 On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:19:03 +, Martin Packer wrote: >OK, I'll try... > >... Presumably you'd want this putative 32-bit address space to have >access to all the stuff other address spaces have access to, such as >Shared/Common area

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:19:03 +, Martin Packer wrote: >OK, I'll try... > >... Presumably you'd want this putative 32-bit address space to have >access to all the stuff other address spaces have access to, such as >Shared/Common areas above the bar. No, I'd like current data above the 2 GiB ba

Re: AMODE 32

ormance-topics/id1127943573?mt=2 Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA From: Paul Edwards To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 04/04/2019 14:12 Subject: Re: AMODE 32 Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:54:28 +,

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:54:28 +, Martin Packer wrote: > Plus, how would you map Shared or > Common/System 64-Bit objects into such > an address space? I don't understand this technical question. Can you rephrase? BFN. Paul. --

Re: AMODE 32

er.ibm.com/tv/mpt/or https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/mainframe-performance-topics/id1127943573?mt=2 Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA From: Joe Monk To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 04/04/2019 13:40 Subject:Re: AMODE 32 Sent

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:46:59 -0400, Don Poitras wrote: > When you brought this up a year ago, I don't think you convinced anyone > that this was a useful change or that IBM should reasonably spend > dollars doing it. I doubt much has changed since then to improve your > chances. Last time I was t

Re: AMODE 32

" I don't agree that all new applications should be 64 bit. That is overkill. 32-bit/4 GiB should be enough for almost all commercial applications." "According to the analyst deck circulated with the latest set of quarterly financ

Re: AMODE 32

" I don't agree that all new applications should be 64 bit. That is overkill. 32-bit/4 GiB should be enough for almost all commercial applications." The market disagrees with you, as shown by 64-bit z/arch sales. Joe On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 7:20 AM Paul Edwards wrote: > On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:55

Re: AMODE 32

In article <8891162166296907.wa.mutazilahgmail@listserv.ua.edu> you wrote: > On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:55:30 +0300, Binyamin Dissen > wrote: > >What problem would this solve? > It would set the long-term model for the > mainframe, instead of being stuck with > 24/31-bit software for eternity. > >

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 06:19:50 -0500 Paul Edwards wrote: :>On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:55:30 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: :>>What problem would this solve? :>It would set the long-term model for the :>mainframe, instead of being stuck with :>24/31-bit software for eternity. 24/31 is required for dow

Re: AMODE 32

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:55:30 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: >What problem would this solve? It would set the long-term model for the mainframe, instead of being stuck with 24/31-bit software for eternity. >This would be of zero use for existing applications, I don't agree. Existing applications

Re: AMODE 32

What problem would this solve? This would be of zero use for existing applications, and new applications should simply use 64 bit. On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:17:46 -0500 Paul Edwards wrote: :>I was thinking that z/Arch and z/OS could :>be updated to support AMODE 32. :>If a load module is marked AM

Re: AMODE 32

"PSW bit 30 can be used to signify that an application is running AM32." Whats the ROI to the customer for IBM spending the $$$ to research and modify all of the micro/macro/OS code to allow bit 30 to be anything other than 0? You have to realize that the prices are going to increase to cover tho

Re: AMODE 32

z/OS is already using the 2GiB to 4GiB area. On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:51 PM Paul Edwards wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 19:38:02 -0500, Paul Gilmartin > wrote: > > >>I was thinking that z/Arch and z/OS could > >>be updated to support AMODE 32. > > >Cui bono? > > Combined with making GETMAIN LOC=

Re: AMODE 32

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 19:38:02 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >>I was thinking that z/Arch and z/OS could >>be updated to support AMODE 32. >Cui bono? Combined with making GETMAIN LOC=ANY, when executed AM32, getting memory in the 2 GiB to 4 GiB region, it would allow a long term plan of having pure

Re: AMODE 32

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:17:46 -0500, Paul Edwards wrote: >I was thinking that z/Arch and z/OS could >be updated to support AMODE 32. > Cui bono? Actually, Java uses 32-bit addressing. In a way. Simulated. -- gil -- For IBM-MAI