Talk:IBM Enterprise Systems Architecture

Text and/or other creative content from this version of IBM System/370 was copied or moved into IBM Enterprise Systems Architecture with this edit on 01:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

PSW layout

@Guy Harris: Should the IBM S/370 registers table in IBM System/370 be selectively copied here? If not, should the Enterprise Systems Architecture Extended Control mode PSW sub-table be copied here? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that ESA adds the access registers, the table should probably be selectively copied here, and have the access registers added. Guy Harris (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added a {{stub-section}} because it needs a description of AR mode. I'm not sure what the appropriate level of detail is. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Control registers?

I added a Control Register#Control registers in IBM S/390 section with a table of control level fields, and linked to it from the register table. Should I also copy it to this article in place of the link? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what should be done about control registers for any architecture. A case could be made that the x86 control registers should go in x86 (possibly with control registers new or changed in x86-64 going in x86-64), the S/360 M67 control registers should go in IBM System/360 Model 67, the S/370 control registers should go in IBM System/370, any control registers new or changed in S/370-XA shold go in IBM System/370-XA, any control registers new or changed in ESA/370 or ESA/390 should go here, and any control registers new or changed in z/Architecture should go in z/Architecture, as a collection of control registers for various different architectures all in one single article doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Perhaps control register should restrict itself to the general concept and not list any particular ISA's control registers. Guy Harris (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that the descriptions really belong in the articles on the respective architectures. I only put the 360/67 and ESA layouts her because the Intel layouts were already here. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List new instructions?

I've updated the article to list the features new to ESA/390 and to cite Appendix D of PoOps. Should I list the relevant new instructions under each feature? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent link update

@Akira625: There are two issues with the links added in permalink/1235096591.

The adjacent links IEEE 754 floating-point violate MOS:SPECIFICLINK.
The link hexadecimal is to a numbering system, not to the hexadecimal floating point format. The link should point to IBM hexadecimal floating-point.

The second is easy to fix: [[IBM hexadecimal floating-point|hexadecimal]].

The first is a bit thornier. The wording that I came up with to separate the two links seems klunky, but I like having both terms linked. How about The later ESA/390, introduced in 1990, added a facility to allow device descriptions to be read using channel commands and, in later models, increased the number of floating-point registers from 4 to 16 and added instructions to perform IEEE 754 floating-point operations. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]