In <7.0.1.0.2.20091118095716.023b4...@pobox.com>, on 11/18/2009
at 10:03 AM, David Shein <dsh...@pobox.com> said:
>It has ALWAYS been this way. When you link a program "RENT" you're
>telling the system that the program does not modify itself.
No; you are telling the system to allow concurrent invocations. Even
self-modifying code that IBM shipped as part of the OS has been linked
with RENT, although over the years they've rewritten all or most of that.
Note that the Binder allows things like read-only csects that can
complicate the issue.
>Right! That's the point! The program is NOT linked "RENT" and this is
>happening anyway. Read the original post more carefully.
The original post did *not* say how it was linked.
>Is the blocksize of both libraries the same?
Irrelevant, but
>Yes. 6144.
Ouch!
>However, the failure appears to be happening in IBM code.
What IBM code? What's the reason code associated with the ABEND S0C4?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
