glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>>following is on bitsavers, 1967, os (i.e. mvt) sup****t for 360/91:
>>http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/C28-6666-0_360-91_OSsup****t.pdf
>
>>it has table on pg. 39 on what is precise and what is imprecise. for
>>standard/precise interrupts, the ILC field in the program old psw, has
>>the "length" of the instruction causing the interrupt. for imprecise
>>interrupts, the ILC field is zero.
>
>Yes, ILC zero is the indication for imprecise interrupts.
>
>>on page 10, discussing program first-level interrupt handler, there is
>>and added note (bar-code from TNL update, aka Page revised by TNL
>>N28-2308, 1/31/68):
>
>>| Note: When an imprecise or a multiple-imprecise program interruption
>>| causes a task to be terminated, the completion code is "0C0" since the
>>| last digit reflects the decimal content of bits 26-31 in the program
old
>>| PSW.
>
>>which is then translated to S0C0.
>
>I had thought that for single imprecise interrupts it generated the
>appropriate S0Cx code, with only S0C0 for multiple imprecise interrupts.
>
>But I am remembering from much later, at least 1972. It could be that
>the FLIH was changed, or that the PSW was decoded later in message
>processing to generate the appropriate code. It could also be that
>the system codes manual didn't agree with this note.
>
>The ones I am remembering would have been generated by Fortran code.
Fortran? hmmm...
A quick peek at Rick Fochtman's OS/360 CD turns up IHCARITM / IHCFINTH
which the comments say was "A MEMBER OF THE FORTRAN SYSTEM LIBRARY" It
contains messages IHC20xI and IHC210I.
Andy Wood
woodag@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
