On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 12:24:23 -0500, Rob Schramm wrote: >This whole share areas thing is annoying at best. And confounding and time >consuming at the worst. Has anyone at IBM thought of a way to actually fix >this in a more functional way? > >Winning friends and influencing with my tactful opinions, *grin* > Most (?) of the complaints about (non-)shared areas stem from the non-propagation of DDNAMEs through fork(). Ain't gonna get better (NVFL, anyway). Because of ENQ conflicts between parent and child. Extend the ENQ scope to job rather than address space? NVFL, again.
I could imagine: o A scheme where an allocation could be transferred from parent to child, freeing the ENQ in parent. o A server-client model in which the actual I/O is performed by the parent that performs the allocation, and the data passed to the child via sockets or POSIX pipes. Sort of like NFS, but it needs to be better than NFS. On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 11:33:22 -0600, Kirk Wolf wrote: > >The best documentation on _BPX_SHAREAS is in the z/OS Unix Assembler >Callable Services Guide - under BPX1SPN. > >AFAIK, tcsh doesn't use spawn(), so it can't local spawn processes into the >same AS. I don't think that this is explicityly documented...maybe open a >ETR if you want confirmation. > And worse, there's a POSIX spawn which is not quite compatible with z/OS spawn. (z/OS is better because it didn't assume some of the design constraints of POSIX spawn.) >It sounds like your problem with /bin/sh is with terminfo/termcap setup ? > To whom was that followup addressed (you didn't quote the headers)? Is it possible that .login does some terminfo setup that is absent from the user's .profile? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
