Hi John,
It is possible to create DLLs under z/OS.
Check out the book z/OS C/C++ Programming Guide under the z/OS C/C++
bookshelf.
See the chapter named "Building and Using Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLs)"
which explains thoroughly how to build and use DLLs, Including code samples,
compiler options
Level 2 cache is the reason I believe. Larger in the modules with 20 PUs.
Birger Heede
IBM Software Group
Richards.Bob wrote:
I believe this has been answered before. However, the reason is because of what happens in the manufacturing of the chips.
Some chips yield faster clocking results tha
To all those who lended their hands and knowlege, thank you.
The information provided was of great worth and I was able to get the routine
linked and callable in the manner I needed.
A special thanks to Anyd Robertson for his examples. Those examples made all
the difference in the project.
Ag
What's new in release 3.04.1
Release date: 25 March 2006
Fix to allow building for Intel-based Mac OS X (Jay Maynard)
Note: This version only applies to the Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) platform.
Version 3.04 is current for all other platforms. The updated Tiger binary
package is a univ
Jorge coded:
>A test of transaction(SUPX) under CICS V2.2.0, in instructions wait coded
>below, down the CICS.
>289 WAIT 5,ECBLIST=LISTECBS
>290+*MACDATE 10/20/88
>292+ LA0,5(0,0)LOAD PARAMETER REG 0
>294+ LA1,LISTECBS
Assuming there's nothing missing from this code sample, there are too few
entries in LISTECBS to satisfy the wait count (5).
Isn't WAITing in a CICS transaction frowned upon?
Bob
Jorge Arueira Campos wrote:
Hi all
A test of transaction(SUPX) under CICS V2.2.0, in instructions wait coded
belo
In a message dated 3/25/2006 10:36:03 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't WAITing in a CICS transaction frowned upon?
>>
Strictly verbotten in every shop I've ever been in, but there are always
exceptions.
-
Ed,
I'm glad other, sharper "problem vultures" have spotted the two - so far -
flaws in the original code. But the matter here is whether issuing a WAIT
in a CICS transaction at all is "a good thing" or not.
In the old days, the early seventies when I first came across CICS, issuing
a WAIT in a
>Strictly verbotten in every shop I've ever been in, but there are always
exceptions.
If you can get the wait off of the main TCB (TCA?), it's not as bad, but IBM
(and almost every CICS sysprog I know) still strongly recommends against it.
-
-teD
I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the univer
Michael Wickman wrote:
We have been approached with the idea of converting our tape backups
from 3590 to LTO to get encryption for our off-site backups. There are
claims by the vender that they interface with our DASD backup system and
TMS (CA-Disk and CA-1).
I'm just started asking question
In a message dated 3/24/2006 7:13:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Excellent basic primer on records and blocks. A few comments for the more
advanced user:
>each physical record on tape and DASD ...
>...
>The hardware limit is established by the Count fields in b
In a message dated 3/25/2006 12:15:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The are several encryption packages (appeared after some loud tape-lost
articles), just to mention IBM, FDR, CA.
>>
Does it run on LAPTOPs?
_http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/ey_bp_laptop/_
From MVS System Commands:
If you specify CLOCK for day 2042.260, the last allowable date, the
clock value must not exceed 23.53.47. Later values may cause
unpredictable results.
Now we know projected date of mainframe death. What precision! Even hour
and minute is known.
--
Radoslaw Skor
On Mar 25, 2006, at 12:30 PM, R.S. wrote:
From MVS System Commands:
If you specify CLOCK for day 2042.260, the last allowable date, the
clock value must not exceed 23.53.47. Later values may cause
unpredictable results.
Now we know projected date of mainframe death. What precision! Even
Actually, the IBM product does offer a reader for midrange systems (probably
Laptops as well), and I know that CA is planning on such a reader as well.
This way, tapes for B2B (Business to business) can be sent from a
mainframe-oriented business to a non-mainframe business on an encrypted
tape.
Ru
Now I kind of remember. Thats why I started out my post with "I thought".
I used to remember all this hardware stuff a lot better.
Eric
- Original Message -
From: "John S. Giltner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:37 PM
S
Hi all,
If we have lots of redundant datasets on the machine, and many HLQ (high
level qualifiers) which could (also) be completely removed, but have not
been removed / cleaned up, is this likely to have much of a performance
degradation affect on the Catalog / CAS.
Thanks.
-
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:58:00 -0300, Jorge Arueira Campos wrote:
>A test of transaction(SUPX) under CICS V2.2.0, in instructions wait coded
>below, down the CICS.
>
>289 WAIT 5,ECBLIST=LISTECBS
>290+*MACDATE 10/20/88
>292+ LA0,5(0,0)LOAD PARAMETER
Thanks Eric for taking the time to explain and provide me samples of your jcls.
I will look them over and should I have any questions could I kindly impose
upon your good offices? As you can see it is Saturday night and I am working.
Such is the life as we have ALL have done.
P.S. I thi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:58:00 -0300, Jorge Arueira Campos wrote:
> >I don't know what happened in cics region. Anybody have a information of
> >PTF or APAR related with this problem, macro WAIT of SYS1.MACLIB executed
> >under CICS 220 ???
> Did your SU
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:54:27 -0600, Tim Hare wrote:
>Is this the correct place to ask about VTAM issues? We're trying to move a
>Microsoft Host Integration Server from 802.2 connection to IP-DLC (AKA
>Enterprise Extender). The documentation we've found, however, doesn't
>really use the same names
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:39:34 -0600, Ed Rabara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:54:27 -0600, Tim Hare wrote:
>
>>Is this the correct place to ask about VTAM issues? We're trying to move a
>>Microsoft Host Integration Server from 802.2 connection to IP-DLC (AKA
>>Enterprise Extende
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:13:29 -0500, Don Poitras wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:58:00 -0300, Jorge Arueira Campos wrote:
>
>> >I don't know what happened in cics region. Anybody have a information of
>> >PTF or APAR related with this problem, macro WAIT
23 matches
Mail list logo
