STCKCONV should not be altered; it should do what it has always done.
Too much existing code woulfd be broken by changing its behavior now.
Another facility, call it say STCK2UTC, could usefully be defined on
top of it; but that is another matter.
Maintenance for a table of STCKE values and their
On 7/9/2014 11:04 PM, Jim Mulder wrote:
Upon closer inspection,
the code dealing with CVTLSO and CVTLDTO is on a path used only
for TIME with LINKAGE=SYSTEM. STCKCONV does not do anything
with CVTLDTO and CVTLSO, or attempt any kind of leap second
or time zone adjustment.
THANK GOD!! You scare
On 2014-07-10, at 08:34, Ed Jaffe wrote:
> On 7/9/2014 11:04 PM, Jim Mulder wrote:
>> Upon closer inspection,
>> the code dealing with CVTLSO and CVTLDTO is on a path used only
>> for TIME with LINKAGE=SYSTEM. STCKCONV does not do anything
>> with CVTLDTO and CVTLSO, or attempt any kind of leap s
I have already received many more requests for copies of the source
program for this routine than I had anticipated.
I am in the process of automating my responses. Those who have
requested a copy will receive it sometime tomorrow together with a
copy of an HLASM macro that generates the required
Maybe this could be put on the CBTTAPE for future reference?
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
> l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of John Gilmore
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:53 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: co
Thank you John for your generous offer and for the work needed to put it
together for the community.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of John Gilmore
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:53 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@L
>... showing mostly that STCKCONV (as of z/OS 1.13) has not yet
>implemented the (proposed) use of the high byte of STCKE when
>the ETOD clock wraps.
Support for the 2nd epoch was added in z/OS 2.1
Regards,
George Kozakos
z/OS Software Service, Level 2 Supervisor
On 2014-07-10 17:38, George Kozakos wrote:
>> ... showing mostly that STCKCONV (as of z/OS 1.13) has not yet
>> implemented the (proposed) use of the high byte of STCKE when
>> the ETOD clock wraps.
>
> Support for the 2nd epoch was added in z/OS 2.1
>
Yup. I tried it on a 2.1 system, and it se
