Talk:Program status word

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Program status word register

program status word register 69.113.57.33 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length of PSW

The statement The program status word (PSW) is, typically, 32 bits in length. may be true for 16-bit processors but it is incorrect for 32-bit and 64-bit processors. For those 64 bits and 128 bits are more common. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was changed from a page to talk about PSWs in ISAs including non-S/3x0 ISA to a redirect to status register in this edit, which I guess was a merge into status register, and then turned into a page talking only about S/3x0 PSWs in this edit, so the offending text is no longer present. Guy Harris (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PSW layouts

@Guy Harris and Tom94022:I've copied the PSW tables from IBM System/370 and added the standard S/360 and 360/67 formats. The way those are laid out looks OK for 64-bit registers but would be too crowded for 128. I've used a different format for z/Architecture, and have a prototype at User:Chatul/sandbox/PSW; it needs some tweaking to separate words more clearly. Once that's ready to include in the PSW article, should I change the existing tables to the same style? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...should I change the existing tables to the same style?" I'd vote yes; it makes it a bit easier to determine the bit numbers of the bit fields in the PSW. (And change them in IBM System/370 as well. z/Architecture should perhaps be expanded as well, with its own table, similar to the one in IBM System/370.) Guy Harris (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In IBM System/370 there is the issue of consistency with the other register layouts. Or do you think that those should be changed as well? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, change them all. Guy Harris (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, too. And thanks for all the hard work. Tom94022 (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it a bit to put in more white space; please edit it or post a comment if you don't think I have the spacing or font sizes quite right. Also, I need to link the z PoOp. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PSW in other architectures

The concept of a PSW is not limited to IBM System/360 and successors; it exists both in other IBM products, e.g., 8100, and in products from other vendors, e.g., SDS Sigma series, although the nomenclature varies. I'd like to include an appropriate notice that the article is limited in scope, but there's no DAB or generic article to point to with a hatnote. I don't want to put in detailed information about the other vendors because it might make the article unwieldy. Suggestions? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]