« Return to Thread: zLinux/s390 Linux on Hercules
Re: zLinux/s390 Linux on Hercules
by peter_flass
::
Rate this Message:
--- In hercules-390@..., "rhtatum" <rhtatum@...> wrote:
>
> How can yyou say Assembler H was that much better than Assembler F? I once worked for a company where the GD IT staff, without warning or justification, did away with "F" and installed "H". this meant that our job dcks blew up in our faces, since "F" used either 96K or perhaps a bit more (I don't recall the exact amount), and "H" used 200K and the GD IT folk didn't understand/care about increasing/decreasing the memory to be allocated for each step in a job. This meant that one's job was charged for the biggest step for the whole job whether all the steps, in this case, eeded/used 200K. A fine kettle of fish, and reallly says nothing about "H" except it was a hog for memory.
We ran it on XA, ESA and z systems and always ren with REGION=0M, so we could care less about memory requirements. I believe the trade-off was memory vs. speed. What I liked were things like long labels and relaxation of a lot of the silly restrictions in F.
>
> I've never used HLASM, although I do the Programmer's Guide for that assembler.
HLASM added a lot of useful listing features among other things.
>Yes, I've modified the original PL360 compiler several times over the years for what seemed like good and sufficient reasons.And Mark Waterbury managed to get Stanford University to place the various pieces into the public domain, and the pieces were placed into the Hercules files area if anyone wants to read some fine source code.
>
> I saw a mention of Algol-W sorry folks, but that piece of software appears to be forever lost.
Listings on Bitsavers. From what I've seen here, possibly the complete package available with MTS, whenever tha becomes available.
:-(riginal Message -----
> From: Peter
> To: hercules-390@...
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 7:08 AM
> Subject: [hercules-390] Re: zLinux/s390 Linux on Hercules
>
>
>
>
> --- In hercules-390@..., hercules@ wrote:
> >
> > > Some of what you say is true, but I don't think you understand just what
> > > PL360 is: It's an assembler-level language with the syntax (mostly) of
> > > Algol-60. As a result, there's mstly a one-to-one correspondence between
> > > constructs such as, e.g., R0 := R0-R0; which merely puts out the machine
> > > code for SR 0,0.
> >
> > Since you quoted me and part of the assembler-rant I replied to, I don't
> > know who this is addressed to. I do know PL360 was the basis for PL/AS, PL/X
> > etc.
>
> Not as far as I know.
>
> > I don't see the advantage (or use) of PL/anything or most of the HLA
> > additions
>
> "Most of" maybe. I can't recall the exact differences between assemblers just now, but I know that H was light-years ahead of F, and when I moved to HLASM I still thought it was a step up, though maybe not as big a step.
>
> > and this is from working experience with assembler, and PL/X on
> > real projects including a bit of customizing the PL/X compiler for our shop.
> >
> > And as I said, PL/X isn't available outside IBM so if you're going to write
> > systems software on z/OS you need to be good at assembler, and like it!
> >
> > > An interesting note about the language: I had occasion to write some code
> > > with a big "CASE" statement. I looked at the resulting object code and
> > > discovered that the compiler had generated, as expected, a branch table;
> > > what blew me away was the fact that the branch table was half the size
> > > of what I would have generated in ALC. 'nuff said.
> >
> > Operative phrase: what *you* would have generated ;)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> How can yyou say Assembler H was that much better than Assembler F? I once worked for a company where the GD IT staff, without warning or justification, did away with "F" and installed "H". this meant that our job dcks blew up in our faces, since "F" used either 96K or perhaps a bit more (I don't recall the exact amount), and "H" used 200K and the GD IT folk didn't understand/care about increasing/decreasing the memory to be allocated for each step in a job. This meant that one's job was charged for the biggest step for the whole job whether all the steps, in this case, eeded/used 200K. A fine kettle of fish, and reallly says nothing about "H" except it was a hog for memory.
We ran it on XA, ESA and z systems and always ren with REGION=0M, so we could care less about memory requirements. I believe the trade-off was memory vs. speed. What I liked were things like long labels and relaxation of a lot of the silly restrictions in F.
>
> I've never used HLASM, although I do the Programmer's Guide for that assembler.
HLASM added a lot of useful listing features among other things.
>Yes, I've modified the original PL360 compiler several times over the years for what seemed like good and sufficient reasons.And Mark Waterbury managed to get Stanford University to place the various pieces into the public domain, and the pieces were placed into the Hercules files area if anyone wants to read some fine source code.
>
> I saw a mention of Algol-W sorry folks, but that piece of software appears to be forever lost.
Listings on Bitsavers. From what I've seen here, possibly the complete package available with MTS, whenever tha becomes available.
:-(riginal Message -----
> From: Peter
> To: hercules-390@...
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 7:08 AM
> Subject: [hercules-390] Re: zLinux/s390 Linux on Hercules
>
>
>
>
> --- In hercules-390@..., hercules@ wrote:
> >
> > > Some of what you say is true, but I don't think you understand just what
> > > PL360 is: It's an assembler-level language with the syntax (mostly) of
> > > Algol-60. As a result, there's mstly a one-to-one correspondence between
> > > constructs such as, e.g., R0 := R0-R0; which merely puts out the machine
> > > code for SR 0,0.
> >
> > Since you quoted me and part of the assembler-rant I replied to, I don't
> > know who this is addressed to. I do know PL360 was the basis for PL/AS, PL/X
> > etc.
>
> Not as far as I know.
>
> > I don't see the advantage (or use) of PL/anything or most of the HLA
> > additions
>
> "Most of" maybe. I can't recall the exact differences between assemblers just now, but I know that H was light-years ahead of F, and when I moved to HLASM I still thought it was a step up, though maybe not as big a step.
>
> > and this is from working experience with assembler, and PL/X on
> > real projects including a bit of customizing the PL/X compiler for our shop.
> >
> > And as I said, PL/X isn't available outside IBM so if you're going to write
> > systems software on z/OS you need to be good at assembler, and like it!
> >
> > > An interesting note about the language: I had occasion to write some code
> > > with a big "CASE" statement. I looked at the resulting object code and
> > > discovered that the compiler had generated, as expected, a branch table;
> > > what blew me away was the fact that the branch table was half the size
> > > of what I would have generated in ALC. 'nuff said.
> >
> > Operative phrase: what *you* would have generated ;)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
« Return to Thread: zLinux/s390 Linux on Hercules
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
