Joe R wrote <snip>I got to a X'89' is a header the doc say that decrementing that would bring to a new linkage frame I specifically remember looking - 32 bytes from there and it was all zeros. </snip> Not having ready access to that document, but knowing who wrote it, I'll bet that it does not say that. It certainly isn't true architecturally.
You might look again at the architectural definition of the header stack entry (which I expect that that presentation shows correctly). Is it actually the case that you had only the one BAKR entry on the linkage stack and that is why the preceding entry descriptor was for the header? If so, of course there is nothing preceding that, which the rest of the information in that entry descriptor would have indicated. I don't recall that you ever posted what the linkage stack looked like (you showed only the entry descriptor and data that actually was irrelevant because it was part of the next entry). If true, despite being asked about doing so, why not? You misinterpreted data that you did not let the readers see, made incorrect conclusions and started with that. Really? What can we do to get you to post in a meaningful and useful way so that the kind readers of IBM-Main can help (without wasting unnecessary time)? Peter Relsonz/OS Core Technology Design Peter Relsonz/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
