I do not pretend to know the answer to the initial question, but when Charles mentioned updating the SDWA, that seems really problematic to me.
I tried a simple experiment: -- Mainline sets 2 ESTAEXs -- Mainline blows up -- Newest ESTAEX routine gets control and updates the "AMODE 64" bit in the PSWs of SDWAEC1, SDWAEC2, SDWAPSW16 -- That ESTAEX routine percolates -- Older ESTAEX routine gets control. It finds the AMODE 64 bits on in all of those PSWs. This is what I expected because, for the most part, RTM builds the SDWA anew for each recovey routine, from a protected copy so that changes made by one ESTAE routine are not visible to the next (there are likely some exceptions, but the PSWs are part of the re-build). I have no explanation for why LE's behavior would change based on setting of some bit that an ESTAE routine changed, unless that routine is itself calling LE providing that SDWA. Oherwise, LE would have no idea that you changed anything. Probably a stupid question: since running AMODE 64 is pretty much outside the bounds of 31-bit LE, have you considered protecting your AMODE 64 code with your own recovery and having that recovery field any problem appropriately? The ESTAEX SPIEOVERRIDE keyword can be used to make sure that LE's (E)SPIE does not get control if a program interrupt occurs. Peter Relson z/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
