Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Steve Smith
@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 > > >

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Seymour J Metz
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Farley, Peter x23353
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Bernd Oppolzer
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)

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread John McKown
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.

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Seymour J Metz
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Richard Kuebbing
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Richard Kuebbing
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:

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Seymour J Metz
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Richard Kuebbing
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Mike Shaw
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Christopher Y. Blaicher
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:

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Martin Truebner
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

Re: old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread retired mainframer
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

old code failing

2019-07-24 Thread Richard Kuebbing
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