Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-15 Thread Henry Willard
Gord Tomlin wrote: > To be completely accurate, we are developing a new component for an > existing product. The existing product is written entirely in Assembler > and is not compatible with LE. I would love to not use CEEPIPI, but > that's a non-starter. The new component needs to use a couple o

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-15 Thread Steve Comstock
Gord Tomlin wrote: To be completely accurate, we are developing a new component for an existing product. The existing product is written entirely in Assembler and is not compatible with LE. I would love to not use CEEPIPI, but that's a non-starter. The new component needs to use a couple of API

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-15 Thread Gord Tomlin
To be completely accurate, we are developing a new component for an existing product. The existing product is written entirely in Assembler and is not compatible with LE. I would love to not use CEEPIPI, but that's a non-starter. The new component needs to use a couple of APIs that are only pro

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-15 Thread Steve Comstock
Gord Tomlin wrote: Definitely, the key item is the meaning of "dormant". Clearly, the environment "exists" until it is destroyed by the term call. The question is what should happen when the environment exists but is dormant. IBM states in the description of init_sub that it "sets the environm

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-15 Thread Bernd Oppolzer
I'm very interested to see how this discussion will proceed. Maybe someone of IBM wants to participate. By similar issues we ended up with the following "solution": we wrote an LE exit, which we tried to activate in all environments, that is, batch, TSO and IMS, in our case. Programming language

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Gord Tomlin
Definitely, the key item is the meaning of "dormant". Clearly, the environment "exists" until it is destroyed by the term call. The question is what should happen when the environment exists but is dormant. IBM states in the description of init_sub that it "sets the environment dormant so that

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Steve Comstock
Gord Tomlin wrote: Hi Steve, You're close! I'll go through your points in order: 1. Correct. CEEPIPI is called with request code 3 (init_sub). The PIPI table is set up correctly. For the demonstration case (IBM's sample to keep things simple) I took a working program and added an intentional

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Gord Tomlin
I agree, the cut-and-paste out of the PDF is painful. I've sent you ASMPIPI off list. You already have HLLPIPI. Steve Comstock wrote: Gord Tomlin wrote: Hi Steve, You're close! I'll go through your points in order: 1. Correct. CEEPIPI is called with request code 3 (init_sub). The PIPI table

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Steve Comstock
Gord Tomlin wrote: Hi Steve, You're close! I'll go through your points in order: 1. Correct. CEEPIPI is called with request code 3 (init_sub). The PIPI table is set up correctly. For the demonstration case (IBM's sample to keep things simple) I took a working program and added an intentional

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Gord Tomlin
Hi Steve, You're close! I'll go through your points in order: 1. Correct. CEEPIPI is called with request code 3 (init_sub). The PIPI table is set up correctly. For the demonstration case (IBM's sample to keep things simple) I took a working program and added an intentional ABENDS0C3. For yo

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Steve Comstock
Gord Tomlin wrote: Just looking for input as to whether this is "working as designed" before I report it as a defect... If a program that uses CEEPIPI to call HLL subroutines abends while *not* in any of the HLL subroutines, LE recovery processes the abend and transforms a system abend into a

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Gord Tomlin
Thanks Don, but my mission here is not how to get at the LE information in the dump, but rather to have LE's recovery routines entirely out of the way when an abend occurs outside of the LE environment. The LE Programming Guide says that when control is returned to the caller of CEEPIPI, the e

Re: CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Don Poitras
If you change to SYSMDUMP and use the IPCS command "IP VERBX LEDATA 'ALL'", you may be able to get a traceback and PSW/regs at time of ABEND. Gord Tomlin wrote: > > Just looking for input as to whether this is "working as designed" > before I report it as a defect... > > If a program that uses C

CEEPIPI incorrect recovery processing?

2009-09-14 Thread Gord Tomlin
Just looking for input as to whether this is "working as designed" before I report it as a defect... If a program that uses CEEPIPI to call HLL subroutines abends while *not* in any of the HLL subroutines, LE recovery processes the abend and transforms a system abend into a LE user abend. Mean