On Sep 26, 2012, at 06:16, McKown, John wrote: > Taking my usual "I am a paranoid" approach, this is an S (Serious Error) > rather than an E (Error) with an RC=12 because it could indicate that you > have gotten maintenance from a "hacked" source. ... > That's a plausible rationale. But then I'd expect SMP/E to issue equally harsh diagnostices whether the failed checksum is calculated by ICSF or by Java. Instead, in the ICSF case SMP/E issues the GIM45500S but not the harsher GIM44336S. RC=12 in both cases.
> OT to SMP/E, but an example of why RC=0 is "nirvana", is our attempt to > upgrade from Endevor 12 to Endevor 15. The people who wrote the "processors" > (rules used to compile and link programs, move source, ...), ignored all > messages which did not cause the program to not produce a load module, ... > There are the seeds of an escalation here. As users become more tolerant of return codes, developers will be compelled to escalate the return codes. Your people haven't learned the bitter lesson of attempting to execute in the UNIX (USS) shell a program object that the Binder has marked nonexecutable. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:49 PM >> >> GIM45500S ** VERIFICATION OF HASH VALUE OF FILE >> /*****/*****.gimzip/GIMPAF.XML FAILED. SMP/E WILL NOT >> RETRY FILE RETRIEVAL. >> GIM44336S ** AN UNUSUAL CONDITION OCCURRED. GIMJVCMF - >> java.security.InvalidParameterException >> GIM20501I RECEIVE PROCESSING IS COMPLETE. THE HIGHEST RETURN CODE >> WAS 12. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
