Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: ancient OS history, ARM is sort of channeling the IBM 360 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 03:03:16 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 05:03:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f0fce2a17c28243633ab8e4185ca024d"; logging-data="1559010"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18w1c5gPjrLulljwKuRE1AH" User-Agent: Pan/0.158 (Avdiivka; ) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZDLLBlIY7y+4XEhm+CyF7aNz2A4= Bytes: 1780 On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 01:02:07 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote: > According to Lawrence D'Oliveiro : >> >>> Again, it depends. For COBOL, you didn't have to specify anything. >>> The compiler set up everything for you for you, and it "just worked". >> >> Maybe it didn’t. Given the way locate-mode I/O is set up, it should >> automatically fall back to copy-mode if the conditions are not right. >> So maybe you were in fact using copy-mode, not locate-mode, most of the >> time, without realizing it. > > You know, you could admit that just once you're wrong. Admit that you never checked whether locate mode was actually engaged or not. You just assumed that it was.