I agree that the RLSE is unneeded and should be corrected. But my suggestion may help until the fix is in.
-- -- Don Imbriale temporarily retired On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com>wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:14:05 -0500, Don Imbriale wrote: > > >In the SPACE parameter, reverse the primary and secondary quantities. > > > Irrelevant. Please don't claim that the existence of even an obvious > alternative refutes the observation of the original problem. It > might demote it from a SEV2 to a SEV3 (I reported it initially as > SEV3), but it should be PER, regardless. > > IBM does this far too often: I report a problem; they recode my > test case to one that does not exhibit the problem, then say, > "Oh, no problem!" Sometimes they claim that my test case, > purposely coded to exhibit the problem with mimimal code, performs > no useful function had it worked, so I shouldn't consider it a > problem. > > >On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >> >> > >> >>NF? This really should be PER, though IBM might make a case for > >> >>PER/FIN given the behavior change they suggest in the PMR. > >> > >> exec cp -B > >> -PRECFM=FB,LRECL=80,BLKSIZE=0,SPACE=(10000,(10000,1)) supr610.ptf > >> //SMI.supr610.ptf > >> > >> And the program failed with ABEND SB37 with only 2 blocks in > >> the primary extent. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
