At 11:06 -0400 on 06/09/2011, Tony Harminc wrote about Re: DCBs and
DCBEs - Could IBM have done it any worse?:
On 8 June 2011 23:56, Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9...@panix.com> wrote:
At 17:09 -0400 on 06/08/2011, Tony Harminc wrote about Re: DCBs and DCBEs -
Could IBM have done it any worse?:
So OPEN not only zeroed out the DCBE pointer, but it also turned off
the flags that show that such a pointer exists? I suppose that's
considerate...
Considerate Nothing - Since it destroyed the DCBE Pointer (by setting it to
Zero) it HAD to reset the flags or the first time something tried to access
the DCBE Pointer (since the flags were still set) it would ABEND/0cx. The
only way to avoid this is to unset the flags that would cause the pointer to
be referenced.
I omitted the <grin> to save bandwidth.
Tony H.
I realize that. I was just commenting for those who might have
overlooked the linkage between the flags and the zero'ing and the
consequences of leaving the flags set. In some cases, the fall-out
from an action is missed and explicitly mentioning it is always
useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
