开云体育

[ In passing, a line like the above STATUS = is often enough not updated to show later changes. But I take the point.]

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.4.0?topic=ixg-iarbrvkr-replacement-tprot-instruction Joe

That seems kind of muddled. IEAVEVAL *is* a service that does the check, using TPROT or CS as appropriate. Do you mean there is an *instruction* now that does the same check? If so, I'm not aware of

Hi Harold, Thank you for the very detailed explanation. I think is probably best to move this to the cRexx list seeing that there is work to do working to the solution. I’ll invite you off-list and

Harold, "Hercules is NOT a hardware emulator. ... So, the argument that because hardware worked a certain way dictates how Hercules should operate does not conform to Hercules design objective." I

The situation with 16M of memory and GCC compilations is a known consideration. I am not current with this topic although I was very much aware of what transpired due to the 16M constraint when it was

Hercules was never designed to operate that way. As the architectures expanded over the years, Hercules maintains the current level of the architecture. For S/370 that means Hercules emulates the LAST

Hercules is NOT a hardware emulator. Hercules emulates three different ARCHITECTURES. Yes, those architectures have been implemented by hardware from multiple hardware vendors. So, the argument that

This should be acceptable, XEDIT on z/VM 6.4 behaves this way. LCM+L's VM/SP 5 is down atm. This might be a typical task for the profile when EE will be able to run REXX-powered macros. Here an

In z/OS they no longer use TPROT. There is a service now that does the check. Joe [email protected]> wrote:

Hello, Please add to the wishlist: Accept * for the drive letter (e.g. EE DMKSYS ASSEMBLE *). It would also be nice to have a SYNONYM list for filetypes (e.g. ASM for ASSEMBLE). Thank you for asking

"But I personally think it's quite telling that IBM did eventually "fix" (change) that particular routine to properly use the 'TPROT' instruction instead in their later versions of MVS up to and

Some progress ... EE is seeing subcommands via bREXX and sets return code 4711?? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4711 ) : * File: CLOSE??? EXEC???? A1 ====> cms close File written: CLOSE EXEC

Doug Harvey wrote: HA! In your dreams! :) Sure it would! As long as you did the update *correctly* (sensibly) of course. Check for the existence of the 'TPROT' instruction at startup (IPL) and set a

Very much a newcomer here but have been following this discussion with interest, and appreciate both sides of the discussion, but I don't think the program should be updated. If it WAS, and tomorrow

Joe Monk wrote: [...] Yes, I can see that, and I can certainly understand it as well. As you say Joe, at the time, it was the *only* way it could be done, and thus cannot *technically* be classified

"I really don't see that it's a bug. Maybe a less than ideal implementation, but who's to judge that?" Well, when it was implemented it was the only way! *01* MODULE NAME= 00150002 * IEAVEVAL 00200002

On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 12:23, Fish Fish <david.b.trout@...> wrote: [...] > I'm sure you'll agree that products should be allowed to issue whatever > messages they feel might be helpful to the

There are definitely different phases, but in how far they are actually run sequentially (like actual passes), I don't know. At least current gccs have an option to dump out the intermediate data

I had a quick look, and it appears there is support in config.h for generating the pre-processor as a separate module. I may try doing this if I get a moment. Dave