In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/15/2006
at 01:30 PM, Bruce Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't doubt you but I am trying to figure out how this could occur.
Because there was an IPL parameter that allowed it. Had I been allowed
to I would have killed the infamous thing.
A non-reentrant or
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 12/13/2006
at 02:36 PM, Volkmar Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Well there's another flag, which is REUSable. This says, it can be
loaded once, used multiple times, but only one instance at a time. I
think this comes near to what you explain.
Except that MVS will force
There is no thus. I've dealt with plenty of LPA-resident code that
wasn't reentrant; in fact, I've dealt with LPA resident code that was
neither reentrant nor refreshable.
I don't doubt you but I am trying to figure out how this could occur.
The LPA is (by default) store protected so an LPA
On 15 Dec 2006 10:33:30 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
There is no thus. I've dealt with plenty of LPA-resident code that
wasn't reentrant; in fact, I've dealt with LPA resident code that was
neither reentrant nor refreshable.
I don't doubt you but I am trying to figure out how
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/27/2006
at 06:23 PM, Charles Mills said:
What kind of a batch utility uses hard-coded DD names, rather than
the override list passed as parameter two convention?
One written by people ignorant of MVS conventions, which is all too
typical of Unix System Support.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/27/2006
at 07:20 PM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
To make things worse, with Unix Services one might spawn multiple
instances of FTP client under an single job step. (Or are those
considered separate job steps?)
Not if _BPX_SHAREAS=YES. If a process is
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/28/2006
at 06:36 AM, Tom Marchant said:
IMHO, it should have been coded with an ENQ or some other suitable
method of serializing it's use it so that there would be no
conflicts.
At a minimum. Preferably it should have been coded to accept a ddname
list *and* it
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on
11/28/2006
at 10:47 AM, Arthur T. said:
But, as described, the module may be LPA-eligible and usable
by multiple address spaces at the same time.
Neither of those makes it reenterable.
and the RENT bit does give useful information.
And incorrect results.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/28/2006
at 04:32 PM, Jeffrey D. Smith said:
Why not just say it is a reentrant job step program? That describes
that it is reentrant (LPA-eligible for use by multiple jobs) and it
must be a job step program
Because it wouldn't be true.
Trying to run a job step
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/28/2006
at 05:08 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg said:
A module can be placed into the LPA (and thus must be reentrant)
There is no thus. I've dealt with plenty of LPA-resident code that
wasn't reentrant; in fact, I've dealt with LPA resident code that was
neither
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on
11/29/2006
at 04:31 PM, Craddock, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As far as MVS (Binder and Contents) is concerned, reentrant only
means that the code does not modify itself. Period.
No; you've been around long enough to know better than that. It goes
into SP252 if the
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/27/2006
at 04:44 PM, Charles Mills said:
I'm sorry - I hate to start up this reentrant thing again but would
anyone (everyone? g) like to suggest a term to describe a program
that is technically reentrant but that cannot be multi-tasked in a
single jobstep due to
Well there's another flag, which is REUSable. This says, it can be loaded
once, used multiple times, but only one instance at a time. I think this comes
near to what you explain. REUS is, as Charles said, not the same as RENT.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
That's the correct explanation and that's why the full name of REUS is
Serially Reusable.
Kees.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Well there's another flag, which is REUSable. This says, it can be loaded
once, used multiple times, but only one instance at a time. I
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:31:26 -0500, Craddock, Chris wrote:
A reentrant program is one that can be run by multiple *tasks*
at the same time. It is NOT defined as one that can be used
by multiple *address spaces* at the same time.
If you can find any two tasks that can not use a program at
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:38:51 -0600, Tom Marchant m42tom-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:31:26 -0500, Craddock, Chris wrote:
...
Oh dear, the thread that will never die.
...
That's NOT what it says in the Program Management manual.
...
I almost responded to Chris, No. This a
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:08:27 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 14:19 +0100 on 11/28/2006, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM wrote about Re:
Descriptive term for reentrant program that nonetheless:
I'd say, it is simply *not* reentrant and has the RENT bit set
incorrectly. Anyone can
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:32:39 -0700, Jeffrey D. Smith wrote:
On 28 Nov 2006 05:51:27 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) wrote:
I'd say, it is simply *not* reentrant and has the RENT
bit set
incorrectly. Anyone can set the RENT
A reentrant program is one that can be run by multiple *tasks*
at the same time. It is NOT defined as one that can be used
by multiple *address spaces* at the same time.
If you can find any two tasks that can not use a program at
the same time, then that program is NOT reentrant.
Oh
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:44:05 -0800, Charles Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry - I hate to start up this reentrant thing again but would
anyone
(everyone? g) like to suggest a term to describe a program that is
technically reentrant but that cannot be multi-tasked in a single jobstep
due
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Charles Mills
I'm sorry - I hate to start up this reentrant thing again
but would anyone (everyone? g) like to suggest a term to
describe a program that is technically reentrant but that
cannot be multi-tasked
Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:44:05 -0800, Charles Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm sorry - I hate to start up this reentrant thing again but would
anyone
(everyone? g) like to suggest a term to describe a program that is
On 28 Nov 2006 05:51:27 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) wrote:
I'd say, it is simply *not* reentrant and has the RENT
bit set
incorrectly. Anyone can set the RENT bit on his module,
but that does
not mean it is coded reentrant,
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:47:03 -0500, Arthur T. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
adjectives I'd use to describe such code: badly-written
or badly-designed. Or, am I missing a good reason
(unrelated to the hard-coded DDNAMEs) that FTP shouldn't be
used by multiple tasks within one address space?
...
At 14:19 +0100 on 11/28/2006, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM wrote about Re:
Descriptive term for reentrant program that nonetheless:
I'd say, it is simply *not* reentrant and has the RENT bit set
incorrectly. Anyone can set the RENT bit on his module, but that does
not mean it is coded reentrant,
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Arthur T.
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Descriptive term for reentrant program that nonetheless is
not multi-taskable?
On 28 Nov 2006
I'm sorry - I hate to start up this reentrant thing again but would anyone
(everyone? g) like to suggest a term to describe a program that is
technically reentrant but that cannot be multi-tasked in a single jobstep
due to some hard-coded externality? This is not just an excuse to re-start a
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:44:05 -0800, Charles Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
term to the IBM FTP client, which has the RENT bit set but which uses the
hard-coded DD names INPUT and OUTPUT and therefore effectively cannot be
multi-tasked in a single jobstep or region.
To make things worse,
I am going to guess that under UNIX it uses stdin and stdout. My impression
is that the FTP client is a happy UNIX program coexisting unhappily as an
MVS batch jobstep and TSO command.
What kind of a batch utility uses hard-coded DD names, rather than the
override list passed as parameter two
29 matches
Mail list logo
