From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6be11e765df1680d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,6be11e765df1680d
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-26 08:36:55 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!mtvwca1-snh1.ops.genuity.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
References: <OqV5a.53545$jM5.135177@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
 <BkW5a.222858$vm2.168685@rwcrnsc54> <v5i2u5dt5cp9c0@corp.supernews.com>
 <q0g6a.538999$HG.95100948@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
 <b3h4na$nro$1@newsfeeds.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: PL/I is a viable language
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Message-ID: <G267a.273953$vm2.210517@rwcrnsc54>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.207.204.17
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1046277414 12.207.204.17 (Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:36:54 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:36:54 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:36:54 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4465 comp.lang.ada:34609
Date: 2003-02-26T16:36:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Richard Shetron" <multics@neroon.user.acm.cs.rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:b3h4na$nro$1@newsfeeds.rpi.edu...
(snip)
> >
> >At the cost of slowing the 91 down to a 75.  It meant issuing the
> >          BCR   15,0
> >(flush pipeline) instruction.
> >
> >By the way, all this also applied to the 360/95, 360/195, and 370/195.
>
> This was not a PL/1 problem, but a problem with the underlaying
> hardware.  These were early pipelined machines where an error in
> the pipeline wasn't readily tracked back to actually offending
> instruction.  If the hardware can't report the correct program
> counter for errors, the software can't do more then guess.

Well, they were a problem for PL/I because PL/I tried.  Other languages gave
up and let the system handle it.

There is an error message in PL/I (F) that changes from ERROR AT to ERROR
NEAR when the M91 option is on.   I believe the BCR 15,0 are only added if
STMT option is on, so that statement numbers are reported in messages.

-- glen