In case anyone cares, the answer seems to be that you cannot trap an operator CANCEL using signals. The trick is searching on Sx22. Here is what the LE P/G has to say:
When TRAP(ON,SPIE) is in effect, Language Environment is notified of abends and program interrupts. Language semantics, C/C++ signal handlers, PL/I ON-units, and user-written condition handlers can then be invoked to handle them. An exception to this behavior is that Language Environment cannot handle Sx22 abends, even if TRAP(ON) is specified. An experiment over the weekend verified that this seems to be true. I might quibble with "cannot"; LE chooses not to process Sx22 ABENDs. I am exploring establishing my own ESTAE and taking it from there. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? Thanks! That is indeed part of it. My SIGABND was *not* driven for an operator CANCEL, however. No answer for what signal if any might be driven by an operator CANCEL. I guess I am going to have to experiment. Annoying. I will have to build something just to test this because my "real" program is too likely to make a mess if cancelled (as it currently stands). Not directed at you, Steve, but just in general: it is so easy to respond to these questions with "RTFM" but it's a heck of a lot easier to point out information that you already know than to find answers that you don't know. I searched on signal and cancel, signal and s0c1, etc., etc. The page you cite of course has the "S0c1" answer, but all the searching in the world won't find "s0c1" on that page. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
