A refreshable program may modify itself, right? REFR does not say "I don't modify myself" it says "you can reload me if you want." Almost the same thing, but not quite.
Granted, modifying program storage is a bad idea -- in any event. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 7:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00) On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 07:27:15 -0400, Peter Relson wrote: >>REFRPROT extends this to programs that are not loaded from an APF >>authorized library. > >Actually, REFRPROT extends this to programs that are bound with the >REFR option regardless of module authorization or library authorization. >And it goes further because it page-protects, which would cause the >program to blow up even if were running key 0 if it attempted to store >into itself. > I remain mystified, Why was not the REFRPROT behavior the default (or only) behavior ever since the inception of the REFR attribute? o Is there a performance penalty for REFRPROT that developers wanted to circumvent for problem programs? Contrariwise, it seems that coding a test for the authorized status of the load library was needless effort. o Did the developers assume, very incorrectly IMO, that they were extending a courtesy to application programmers by permitting programs that modified themselves to be marked REFR? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
