From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:02:09 PM UTC+8, Joe Monk wrote:   
   > > And you can deceive yourself that an executable magically   
   > > transforms from being a 64-bit executable to a 24-bit   
   > > executable just because you ran it on a S/370 (and you   
   > > can quote shit from the S/370 manual too if you want).   
   > >   
   > "That means producing   
   > a *single load module* that works as AM24   
   > on MVS 3.8j, works as AM31 on MVS/XA and   
   > above, and works as AM64 on z/OS.   
   >   
   > Paul Edwards"   
   >   
   > 'nuff said.   
      
   No, just because my 32-bit executable can tolerate being run   
   on environments that offer less than 32 address lines, or more than   
   32 address lines, or exactly 32 address lines, does not alter the   
   fact that it is a 32-bit executable (which is why it can only address   
   4 GB of memory, even if you make infinite address lines available).   
      
   It just means it is the first properly-written MVS executable since   
   the 4th or similar incarnation of IEFBR14.   
      
   NOW "nuff" has been said.   
      
   Although it would still be amusing to find out what your actually   
   definition of "x-bit executable" is. You don't seem to be able to   
   identify an executable that cannot address more than 4 GB   
   as 32-bit. Every time IBM comes up with a new machine (or if   
   they have built multiple machines, which they have), you run   
   around in circles trying to figure out what number to give it.   
      
   You don't seem to be alone. This mainframe "culture" is one of   
   the things that overcomplicates it to the point that people who   
   have been programming on it for decades end up running   
   around in circles when someone from an independent environment   
   points out their misconception.   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)