On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:32:39 -0700, Jeffrey D. Smith wrote:
>> >> On 28 Nov 2006 05:51:27 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main >> (Message-ID:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) wrote: >> >> >>I'd say, it is simply *not* reentrant and has the RENT >> >>bit set >> >>incorrectly. Anyone can set the RENT bit on his module, >> >>but that does >> >>not mean it is coded reentrant, which apparently is also >> >>true for this >> >>code. >> >> >> >>Kees. >> > >> >You're right, Kees. "The module is reenterable. It can be >> >executed by more than one task at a time." >> > >Why not just say it is "a reentrant job step program"? That describes >that it is reentrant (LPA-eligible for use by multiple jobs) Did you make up that definition yourself? the word "Job" does not appear anywhere in the definition of reentrant (or reenterable). The word "Task" does, and it is nowhere qualified by any restrictions about multiple tasks in the same job. >and it >must be a job step program (a job executes only one step at a time) >so it has exclusive access to the DD names for the step. > >Trying to run a "job step program" as something other than that >will cause problems. Is it the responsibility of the program to >ensure that it only runs as a job step program? > It *IS* the responsibility of a reentrant program to ensure that it will work correctly by any two tasks at the same time. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
