In <022001d0a6d6$3459fff0$9d0dffd0$@mcn.org>, on 06/14/2015
at 12:13 PM, Charles Mills said:
>Leap seconds are irrelevant.
No. They're irrelevant if you just do the arithmetic yourself, but
they're highly relevant when you use a clock conversion routine that
takes them into account.
>The TOD
At 10:49 -0500 on 06/15/2015, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: STCK question:
I'll grant that I hijacked the topic by introducing the legal consequences
of calendar dates. But "well under a year" is irrelevant. Adding a mere
60 seconds to 2008-12-31 23:59:00 should give a date
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:29:12 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>But there are no dates or years in the question, only duration. And the
>durations are by implication well under a year.
>
I'll grant that I hijacked the topic by introducing the legal consequences
of calendar dates. But "well under a ye
: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: STCK question
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:13:31 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Leap seconds are irrelevant. Let's say the routine being measured took
>86,710 seconds. You would be completely correct in saying it took 1
>day, 5 minutes and 10 seconds e
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:13:31 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Leap seconds are irrelevant. Let's say the routine being measured took
>86,710 seconds. You would be completely correct in saying it took 1 day, 5
>minutes and 10 seconds even if the run happened to span a midnight at which
>a leap second w
ubject: Re: STCK question
In , on 06/12/2015
at 06:10 PM, J R said:
>If the highest unit you are working toward is "days", it's actually
>quite simple to calculate. That's because you don't have to deal with
>months and years of
In , on 06/12/2015
at 06:10 PM, J R said:
>If the highest unit you are working toward is "days", it's actually
>quite simple to calculate. That's because you don't have to deal
>with months and years of differing lengths.
What about leap seconds?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg
In <201506122210.t5cma5pg008...@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com>, on
06/12/2015
at 05:05 PM, Wayne Driscoll said:
>Define a constant representing the number of time units in one day
You can't; it's a time-dependent variable. The problem is leap
seconds.
OTOH, the OP may be satisifed with a fairly g
division?
quOtient in the Odd register; rEmainder in the Even register.)
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Janet Graff
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: STCK question
On 12 June 2015 at 10:39, Janet Graff <
004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> STCK-STCK difference in times since the start of the started task
> + 1972/01/01 add in base STCK time to get a STCK value again
> STCKCONV convert that to DATE=MMDD TIME=DEC
===
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:39:38 -0500
> From: 004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: STCK question
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> As these things go, I have found new uses for my little routine. It's strong
> enough to find the elapsed time fo
Define a constant representing the number of time units in one day (from
the Principles of Operation, X'000141DD7600'), then perform modulus
division with the time interval, get the number of days from the quotient.
==
Wayne Driscoll
OMEGAMON DB2 L3 S
+002
Further if you have any questions please let me know
Thanks.
Sri Hari Kolusu
DFSORT Development
IBM Corporation
From: Janet Graff <004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 06/12/2015 07:39 AM
Subject: Re: STCK question
Sent
At 10:03 -0500 on 06/12/2015, Mike Schwab wrote about Re: STCK question:
> I can calculate the date difference by hand (in C based off of
the character representation of the date) of course. Unless someone
knows of a nifty method to get the elapsed number of days from the
data that I h
In <1938152255023757.wa.janet.graffyahoo@listserv.ua.edu>, on
06/11/2015
at 06:56 PM, Janet Graff
<004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> said:
>But I'm missing something.
Significance start character. You mightnalso like EDMK.
BTW, the code might be faster using a register pair
On 12 June 2015 at 10:39, Janet Graff <
004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Unless someone knows of a nifty method to get the elapsed number of days
> from the data that I have?
Paging Mr. Gilmore...
Tony H.
-
At 09:39 -0500 on 06/12/2015, Janet Graff wrote about Re: STCK question:
I can calculate the date difference by hand (in C based off of the
character representation of the date) of course. Unless someone
knows of a nifty method to get the elapsed number of days from the
data that I have?
I
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Janet Graff
<004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> As these things go, I have found new uses for my little routine. It's strong
> enough to find the elapsed time for larger numbers than I intended. So much
> so, I thought I'd add a function to
At 08:47 -0500 on 06/12/2015, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote about Re:
STCK question:
Another very kind person told me of this very clever method of
commenting, ie. you make unreadable things sort of readable:
Use these equates in Assembler:
b equ x'40'
z equ x'20'
n
At 05:37 -0500 on 06/12/2015, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote about Re:
STCK question:
Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
Another method is to use an * Comment to show the mapping.
* B Z Z 9 . 9 9 -
MASK5 DCX'402021204B202060'BZZ9.99-
I hate comments
As these things go, I have found new uses for my little routine. It's strong
enough to find the elapsed time for larger numbers than I intended. So much
so, I thought I'd add a function to show the elapsed time since the beginning
of my started task. The time is working wonderfully but when I
Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>>Another method is to use an * Comment to show the mapping.
>>* B Z Z 9 . 9 9 -
>>MASK5 DCX'402021204B202060' BZZ9.99-
>I hate comments - they're only for lame newbies and are not needed because
>they make debugging too easy [1] ...
Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
>Another method is to use an * Comment to show the mapping.
>* B Z Z 9 . 9 9 -
>MASK5 DCX'402021204B202060' BZZ9.99-
I hate comments - they're only for lame newbies and are not needed because they
make debugging too easy [1] ... ;-D
At 17:26 -0700 on 06/11/2015, Lizette Koehler wrote about Re: STCK question:
And from another sample I found searching on EDIT MASK ASSEMBLER INSTRUCTION
To simplify maintenance of the program, I like to "document" the
print masks by showing a character representation of the hex fi
Thank you Charles, both were excellent suggestions that worked wonderfully!
Janet
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
X'5C2021204B2020'***9.99
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Janet Graff
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:57 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> S
LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: STCK question
>
> Ooh I am liking the ED instruction. But I'm missing something.
>
> My pattern is this
>
> =XL15'20207A20207A20204B202020202020'
>
> My data is this
>
> =XL8'00308208'
>
> And
riginal Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Janet Graff
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:57 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: STCK question
Ooh I am liking the ED instruction. But I'm missing something.
My pattern is this
=
ou want the first leading zero.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Janet Graff
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:57 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: STCK question
Ooh I am liking the ED instruction. But I&#x
Ooh I am liking the ED instruction. But I'm missing something.
My pattern is this
=XL15'20207A20207A20204B202020202020'
My data is this
=XL8'00308208'
And the result I'm getting is this
' 308208'
What I want is this
' 0.308208'
What can I do to the pattern mask to fo
John McKown wrote:
>The "s" is optional, not the "he". I guess the real regexp should be \bs?he\b
>. \b matches, but does not consume, a "word separator" character. So, that
>would be "word separator", followed by an optional "s", followed by "he",
>followed by a "word_separator".
Thanks. I'
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht <
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za> wrote:
> John McKown wrote:
>
> >> I've seen s/he used to cover both genders.
> >Well, being computer professionals, despite not being of the UNIX
> variety, perhaps we use use the regular expression: s?he
>
>
John McKown wrote:
>> I've seen s/he used to cover both genders.
>Well, being computer professionals, despite not being of the UNIX variety,
>perhaps we use use the regular expression: s?he
>(the ? means "repeat 0 or 1 times" aka "optional"). Unless we post in the
>ISPF forum whereupon it be
That's a great write up by Tony. The only thing missing is assembler
code snippets ;)
On 9/06/2015 4:26 AM, Tony Harminc wrote:
I'm not sure if your question is mostly a technical how-to, or more
about output formats. Seems to me there is a decision to be made about
whether you want to display
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Robert A. Rosenberg
wrote:
> At 01:14 -0400 on 06/11/2015, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote about Re:
> STCK question:
>
> >And assuming that Janet is a he.
>>
>> Or that you accept the gender neutral pronoun "he", w
At 01:14 -0400 on 06/11/2015, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote about
Re: STCK question:
>And assuming that Janet is a he.
Or that you accept the gender neutral pronoun "he", which has been
around for centuries.
I've seen s/he used to
In <09c701d0a3a5$da7beb70$8f73c250$@mcn.org>, on 06/10/2015
at 10:49 AM, Charles Mills said:
>And assuming that Janet is a he.
Or that you accept the gender neutral pronoun "he", which has been
around for centuries.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
In , on 06/09/2015
at 10:04 AM, J R said:
>The essence of her question was, having subtracted start stck from
>end stck, how to extract microseconds from the result?
Divide by 4096, convert to decimal and edit.
STCKF TOD
MVI TOD,0
LGRDIFF,TOD
SRAG
And assuming that Janet is a he.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:08 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: STCK question
Shirley the code[1] was
gt; From: Janet Graff <004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Date: 06/09/2015 09:08 AM
> Subject: Re: STCK question
> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>
> Thanks for everyone's suggestions! I did ask for formatting so
Thanks for everyone's suggestions! I did ask for formatting so the output
looks like time but I think the decimal output will be useful as well.
Janet
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send emai
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: STCK question
If you know that the time difference will be less than 24 hours,
you can add X'8126D60E4600' (the TOD value at midnight on Jan 1,
1972),
and pass that to STCKCONV or BLSUXTOD, and just use the time portion of the
date/ti
04:19 -0400
> From: jayare...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: STCK question
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> Janet specifically asked to display in microseconds! I assumed she knows how
> to convert binary to decimal to character.
>
> The essence of her question was,
:22 -0400
> From: shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net
> Subject: Re: STCK question
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> In , on 06/08/2015
>at 02:44 PM, J R said:
>
> >Shift the value right 12 bits and you will have microseconds. (do it
> >algebraically if you want to rou
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
From: Sri h Kolusu
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 09/06/2015 01:03
Subject: Re: STCK question
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>>> SORT also has the capability to convert a STCK/E valu
In , on 06/08/2015
at 02:44 PM, J R said:
>Shift the value right 12 bits and you will have microseconds. (do it
>algebraically if you want to round up)
>Convert to character and display.
Close but no cigar; convert to decimal or convert to hh:mm:ss.ss.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.)
00248cce9f3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Date: 06/08/2015 04:33 PM
> Subject: Re: STCK question
> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>
> Surely this is on cbttape.org.
>
>
> In a message dated 6/8/2015 6:27:49 P.M. Central D
Surely this is on cbttape.org.
In a message dated 6/8/2015 6:27:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
rob.schr...@gmail.com writes:
Use the assembler macros, LE has some functions to do the conversion, SORT
also has the capability to convert a STCK/E value into a human legible
time.
Use the assembler macros, LE has some functions to do the conversion, SORT
also has the capability to convert a STCK/E value into a human legible time.
Rob Schramm
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:26 PM Tony Harminc wrote:
> On 8 June 2015 at 14:25, Janet Graff
> <004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listser
On 8 June 2015 at 14:25, Janet Graff
<004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> I’d like to show this as “Your procedure took nn.nn.n.n microseconds”,or some
> variation on this
> theme.
I'm not sure if your question is mostly a technical how-to, or more
about output formats. Seem
Janet,
This might help.
http://planetmvs.com/hlasm/s390faq.html#64bsub
There is a link to 128-bit math by John Erhman too
Kolusu
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on
06/08/2015 11:25:21 AM:
> From: Janet Graff <004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.ED
Shift the value right 12 bits and you will have microseconds. (do it
algebraically if you want to round up)
Convert to character and display.
Job done!
===
> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 18:25:21 +
> From: 004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: STCK question
> To: I
Oops didn't see you already mentioned that :) I really think it should
work though... I mean, if you subtract, microseconds are still in the
same spot, right?
Tom Brennan wrote:
Can you use the STCKCONV macro?
Janet Graff wrote:
I need my product to report on the amount of clock time aproce
> I need my product to report on the amount of clock time aprocedure
> took. I have captured the STCK before and after theprocedure. The
> procedures take very little time and I want to show theelapsed time
> to the end user.
>
> As two examples
>
> Start Time CF115F56BCCEB945
> End Time
Can you use the STCKCONV macro?
Janet Graff wrote:
I need my product to report on the amount of clock time aprocedure took. I
have captured the STCK before and after theprocedure. The procedures take very
little time and I want to show theelapsed time to the end user.
As two examples
Ah. Differences in STCK are trivial to handle (as opposed to converting one
STCK value to civil time).
If you shift the 64-bit difference right by 12 bits (or divide by 4096, which
is the same thing) you will get the difference in microseconds.
Trust you can take it from there.
BTW, if you kno
http://www.longpelaexpertise.com/toolsTOD.php
Bit 51 (of bits 0-63) is incremented every microsecond.
Trim the difference by 12 bits or divide by 4096.
Convert the remainder to decimal.
120CFE8C -> 120CF -> 0.073,935 seconds
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Janet Graff
<004dc9e91b6d-dmarc-requ
Is this in assembler?
Doesn't EDMASK help in making it readable?
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Janet Graff
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 11:25 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: STCK questio
58 matches
Mail list logo
