@Bernd: Your code is likely exactly what the OP has, and it certainly will
not work reliably as XTIOT is exploited.
Nevertheless, I gather the OP's problem was due to changing to AMODE31
without adequate code clean-up.
sas
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:46 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> XTIOT
>
>
>
XTIOT
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 4:49 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: old code failing
IMO, this interface
Once you get the coding correct, any R15 value not zero from DEVTYPE can be
treated as "DD not found". Simplest solution and solid as a rock to use.
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf
Of Richard Kuebbing
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 1:25 PM
IMO, this interface should work and did never change. Too much software
out there depending on this.
The coding should look like this (from a macro, which looks for a
specific DD - see parm ):
L R1,X'21C' ADDRESS OF OWN TCB
L R1,12(R1)
On 2019-07-24, at 09:48:44, Mike Shaw wrote:
>
> The DEVTYPE macro is a much safer and simpler way to check for the presence
> of a DD. The old TIOT scan method may work and it may not work.
>
Or, use SVC 99 or BPXWDYN INFO
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:24 AM Richard Kuebbing wrote:
>
>> A
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:23 PM Richard Kuebbing wrote:
> Routine only uses the TIOT entry to see if DD is present. It does that to
> avoid OPEN message of missing DD.
>
I will agree, in this case, that using DEVTYPE is the way to go.
Won't GETDSAB do what you want?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Richard Kuebbing
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 1:23 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: old code
I read DEVTYPE doc looking for rc meaning "not found" and did not see it.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Mike Shaw
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 11:49 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: old
Routine only uses the TIOT entry to see if DD is present. It does that to
avoid OPEN message of missing DD.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 1:15 PM
To:
There are hangs to the TIOT in support of SWA above the line, and later changes
in support of XTIOT. Do GETDSAB and RDJFCB with an ARL give you all the data
you need, or do you actually need the TIOT entry itself?
You should not use the TIOT to load the JFCB address into a register; use
system
Thanks for the comments. I have only a few months before I retire after more
than 50 yrs doing ASM.
I found part of the problem. I was testing out of a library that caused a test
version (from 2011) of my subroutine to be used. It works. The production
version (from 2005) does not.
The
The DEVTYPE macro is a much safer and simpler way to check for the presence
of a DD. The old TIOT scan method may work and it may not work.
Mike Shaw
MVS/QuickRef Support Group
Chicago-Soft, Ltd.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:24 AM Richard Kuebbing wrote:
> A subroutine written long ago appears
Maybe the system put the TIOT entry in the extended TIOT. Look up EXTRACT and
GETDSAB macros.
Chris Blaicher
Technical Architect
Syncsort, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of retired mainframer
Sent:
Richard,
>> long ago appears to be failing
I highly doubt that it fails all of a sudden- what did you change?
If you can not tell- show us the code and I bet that someone will show
you subtle flaw in the code is the cause. In the end it will be "totaly
unrelated"(*) change but
Can you show us the code that does the looking?
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
> On Behalf Of Richard Kuebbing
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 8:24 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: old code failing
>
> A subroutine written long ago appears
A subroutine written long ago appears to be failing. It looks for a DDname in
the TIOT. Did the format of the TIOT change at some point? If yes, at what
release?
Does it matter if AMODE is 24 or 31?
It might have something to do with the fact that the DD is a proc override
instead of
16 matches
Mail list logo