In 1319326715.98941.yahoomailmob...@web161421.mail.bf1.yahoo.com, on
10/22/2011
at 04:38 PM, Ed Gould ps2...@yahoo.com said:
I had asked as to why he had DCB specified on SYSUT1 in his JCL for
the linkage editor aka binder.
The linkage editor and the binder are two different programs.
I have
The program was linked under Z/os and the program executed was IEWL so unless
there was a JOBLIB that wasn#39;t shown the user did not supply the entire JCL
stream, there was no way to prove what was really used. so if you think there
is/was a difference please ask the user.
My question was
Shmuel:
Yes , ancient history but many ppl just carry over odd habits in techniques,
etc.
Scott J Ford
Software Engineer
http://www.identityforge.com
From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Sunday,
I found this entry at IBM and it states:
Because the Binder has relaxed all the restrictions inherent in the Linkage
Editor and has added additional functions, it contains new data structures and
opened-ended queues and lists that require more virtual storage. (The table
overflow conditions
Shmuel,
Yep SYSLIB, correct, too much Airplane ??? lol
Scott J Ford
Software Engineer
http://www.identityforge.com
From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Cobol
In
ofc492b912.f5b62f41-on86257932.00027c1b-86257932.0002a...@us.ibm.com,
on 10/22/2011
at 07:29 PM, Wayne Driscoll wdri...@us.ibm.com said:
Please explain how all TCB's under a given JSTCB will point to the
same TIOT is incorrect, but every TCB with the same TCBJSTCB will
normally have the
In 036001cc913f$1932d270$4b987750$@net, on 10/23/2011
at 12:49 AM, Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net said:
Cann't a Authorized program do a ATTACH JSTCB=YES
Il va sans dire. Not only can but do. In fact, the e-mail that Wayne
responded to mentioned that there could be more than one
There is not much of a real difference. SQA will even overflow into CSA.
It is a matter of definition. Also the manual says to use SQA. In
addition, SQA is automatically page-fixed. I don't know why you'd want
executable code in [E]SQA vice [E]CSA.
Sp 226
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Peter Relson
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 10:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SRBEPA
There is not much of a real difference. SQA will even overflow into CSA.
It is a
Despite the harsh opinions expressed, I find it somewhat hard to believe
that the owners of this code would not agree to document the behavior that
has been cited if indeed it is true that certain things are not restored,
unless there is an existing documented protocol that you are expected to
Bill and Mark,
I am aware of the chicken-and-egg problem. It was explained to me back in the
nineties when I first learned that CTCs were not required anymore to establish
signalling because it was the first thing I asked about.
IBM obviously does not get why I am saying that XCF lies to
11 matches
Mail list logo
