On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:13:00 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Dec 10, 2010, at 05:46, Peter Relson wrote: > >>> I wish you wouldn't write "within the bar". It suggests that >>> the bar has thickness, which it does not. Addresses up to and >>> including 7FFFFFFF are below the bar. Addresses from 80000000 >>> and up are above the bar. "Special dispensation" is not needed. >> >> Actually, as it was designed, there is "thickness". The bar is from >> 80000000 through FFFFFFFF. >> Everything from 1_00000000 on up is above the bar. >> >> The bar has been blurred because of the special compensation for Java to >> use an area that includes the bar. >> >OK. Thanks. Henceforth I will try to accommodate Tom's >preference by eschewing "within the bar" in favor of "an >area that includes the bar". (If I remember.) Should I >also use "compensation" rather than "dispensation"? > >Everybody happy?
I defer to Peter's knowledge of the original intent, since the bar is a z/OS construct and not a hardware one. For my purposes, data "above the bar" is data that requires me to be in 64-bit mode. It makes little difference whether that means above 2 GB or above 4 GB, since I will never allocate storage within that range. However, if I need to examine Java stack in that range, the distinction becomes blurred. -- Tom Marchant Abend-AID development Compuware
