In 7.0.1.0.2.20091118095716.023b4...@pobox.com, on 11/18/2009
at 10:03 AM, David Shein dsh...@pobox.com said:
It has ALWAYS been this way. When you link a program RENT you're
telling the system that the program does not modify itself.
No; you are telling the system to allow concurrent
In b0c6f15b0911180948m22a96c1fh9f10e696c00cb...@mail.gmail.com, on
11/18/2009
at 11:48 AM, Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com said:
Despite what the books say, reentrant programs have NEVER been placed in
protected storage UNLESS they were loaded from an APF authorized
library.
The system
In listserv%200911181224379387.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 11/18/2009
at 12:24 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
My understanding is that is what REFR was intended to mean. (Etym.: If a
memory page physically failed, that page could be REFReshed from a
pristine copy, perhaps in a page
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea005bde01...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom, on
11/18/2009
at 12:43 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
As I recall, back in the days of OS/360 and OS/VS1, there was a
transient SVC area. This area was small (4K?).
As I recall. 1KiB in OS/360, 2KiB in
In 4b043e8f.6040...@valley.net, on 11/18/2009
at 01:35 PM, Gerhard Postpischil gerh...@valley.net said:
The linkage editor started out with a read only option, namely REFR
(refreshable). But it was not honored by the early loaders, that treated
it as interchangeable with RENT.
Not quite;
In
!!aaayaih+nruo4exaufaxntnnphscxbiaea3es6bzldpoo2wt55t0jniba...@gmail.com,
on 11/18/2009
at 01:44 PM, Don Williams donb...@gmail.com said:
REFR is old. In those days, physical memory could and did fail
occasionally. I just never understand why IBM forced the
At 08:06 AM 11/20/2009 +0100, you wrote:
WWwsswWW
And this means what?
--
Peter Hunkeler
Credit Suisse
I was wondering the same thing.
David
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
w = Well?
s = Surprise?
David Sheen of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 11/20/2009 11:27:00 AM:
At 08:06 AM 11/20/2009 +0100, you wrote:
WWwsswWW
And this means what?
Peter Hunkeler
Credit Suisse
I was wondering the same thing.
Well, well. I amused about the discussion in this thread (no
offence intended). So many posts, but still neither the actual
abend including the reason, nor the PSW, nor the failing
instruction including the analysis what its operands are have
been posted.
Neither has proof been provided that the
WWwsswWW
- Original Message -
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Wed Nov 18 15:14:23 2009
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited as reentrant
This problem has been solved. In fulfillment of a promise, here is
as much of the explanation as I am permitted to share.
As many suspected, this was indeed a SUE (Stupid User Error).
The program being directly executed, i.e., via JCL, was not itself
failing. The S0C4 was occurring in IBM
WWwsswWW
And this means what?
--
Peter Hunkeler
Credit Suisse
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited as reentrant AND
it is loaded from an authorized library, it gets loaded into
protected storage. That is what the manual says, too. However, that
is not what appears to be happening.
We are on z/OS 1.10. There is a non-reentrant program
: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited as reentrant AND
it is loaded from an authorized library, it gets loaded into
protected storage. That is what the manual says, too
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of David Shein
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited as reentrant
David Shein wrote:
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited as reentrant AND
it is loaded from an authorized library, it gets loaded into protected
storage. That is what the manual says, too. However, that is not
what appears to be happening.
We are on z/OS 1.10. There is a
Just curious - is it an 0C4-04/11/10?
What does the PSW show?
Are there any unauthorized libraries in the concatenation?
Are you sure the code is truly reentrant? I got bit on this one a while ago.
Someone made a simple change but the code became non-rent.
I seem to remember an old rule -
What makes you think the S0C4 is caused by the program being loaded
into subpool 252?
Mostly the fact that the same load module (or a physical copy of it,
at any rate) works in a non-authorized library and fails in an
authorized one. But as I said, I'm open to suggestion, that's why I
made
Are there any unauthorized libraries in the concatenation?
No. Actually, tried it both ways with the same result.
Are you sure the code is truly reentrant? I got bit on this one a
while ago. Someone made a simple change but the code became non-rent.
No, the code is NOT reentrant, was
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM, David Shein dsh...@pobox.com wrote:
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited as reentrant AND it is
loaded from an authorized library, it gets loaded into protected storage.
That is what the manual says, too. However, that is not what appears to
David Shein wrote:
Mostly the fact that the same load module (or a physical copy of it,
at any rate) works in a non-authorized library and fails in an authorized one.
But as I said, I'm open to suggestion, that's why I made the post.
Is the blocksize of both libraries the same?
What are the
David Shein wrote:
What makes you think the S0C4 is caused by the program being loaded
into subpool 252?
Mostly the fact that the same load module (or a physical copy of it,
at any rate) works in a non-authorized library and fails in an
authorized one. But as I said, I'm open to suggestion,
Programs and Protected Storage
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited as reentrant AND
it is loaded from an authorized library, it gets loaded into
protected storage. That is what the manual says, too. However, that
is not what appears to be happening.
We are on z/OS 1.10
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
Are there any unauthorized libraries in the concatenation?
No. Actually, tried it both ways with the same result.
Are you sure the code is truly reentrant? I got bit on this one a
while ago. Someone made a simple change
To keep the number of posts down, I'm going to respond to several in one.
It has ALWAYS been this way. When you link a program RENT you're telling
the system that the program does not modify itself. If that's not true, you
should not be surprised that things don't necessarily work out.
Right!
: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
To keep the number of posts down, I'm going to respond to several in one.
It has ALWAYS been this way. When you link a program RENT you're telling
the system that the program does not modify itself. If that's not true, you
should not be surprised
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of David Shein
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
snip
That's essentially what we're doing
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:59:17 -0500, Don Williams wrote:
So if many decades ago, IBM would have asked me (LOL), I would have
suggested an option like READONLY, RO, PROTECTED, or something along those
My understanding is that is what REFR was intended to mean. (Etym.: If
a memory page physically
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of David Shein
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited
Don Williams wrote:
So if many decades ago, IBM would have asked me (LOL), I would have
suggested an option like READONLY, RO, PROTECTED, or something along those
lines to cause a program to be loaded in protected storage.
The linkage editor started out with a read only option, namely
REFR
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
snip
I agree with your analysis: REFR
My understanding is that is what REFR was intended to mean. (Etym.: If
a memory page physically failed, that page could be REFReshed from a
pristine copy, perhaps in a page data set.)
REFR is old. In those days, physical memory could and did fail occasionally.
I just never understand why IBM
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of David Shein
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
What makes you think the S0C4 is caused by the program being loaded
into subpool 252
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
What makes you think the S0C4 is caused by the program being loaded
into subpool 252?
Mostly the fact that the same load module (or a physical copy of it,
at any rate) works in a non-authorized library and fails
It has ALWAYS been this way. When you link a program RENT you're telling
the system that the program does not modify itself.
Really? I thought that was what REFR was for, not RENT. My understanding
was that RENT simply means that the module can be executed my multiple
tasks simultaneously.
I
I grew up believing that if a program is link edited as reentrant AND
it is loaded from an authorized library, it gets loaded into
protected storage. That is what the manual says, too. However, that
is not what appears to be happening.
We are on z/OS 1.10. There is a non-reentrant program
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Gainsford, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
It has ALWAYS been this way. When you link
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:03:38 -0800, David Shein dsh...@pobox.com wrote:
To keep the number of posts down, I'm going to respond to several in one.
It has ALWAYS been this way. When you link a program RENT you're telling
the system that the program does not modify itself. If that's not true, you
not be loaded
into protected storage.
Don Williams
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Martin Kline
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
I grew up
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
It has ALWAYS been this way. When you link a program RENT you're
telling the system that the program does not modify itself.
Really? I thought that was what REFR
snip
There is a non-reentrant program which, when executed via JCL from an
authorized library, fails with a S0C4.
/snip
As a debugging tool can you determine which subpool the module is loaded
into (that should clear up the non reentrant [et al] too) and what reason
code is the AB/S0C4
In a nonAPF environment, I don't know if marking a program RENT
does anything at all.
Well, it means that if multiple subtasks LINK to it simultaneously,
only one copy gets loaded. :)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
And it certainly was not clear. You wrote:
There is a non-reentrant program which, when executed via JCL
from an authorized library, fails with a S0C4.
Without an AMBLIST or at least a screen print from ISPF showing the
attributes, there is no way for any of us to know if that statement was
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of David Shein
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Reentrant Programs and Protected Storage
Snipped
I have sought advice about posting
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:52:44 -0800, David Shein dsh...@pobox.com wrote:
And it certainly was not clear. You wrote:
There is a non-reentrant program which, when executed via JCL
from an authorized library, fails with a S0C4.
Without an AMBLIST or at least a screen print from ISPF showing the
Please respond with the PIC (4/10/11), as others have asked, indeed the entire
set of abend messages from the job log would be helpful.
David Shein dsh...@pobox.com 11/18/2009 3:52 PM
And it certainly was not clear. You wrote:
There is a non-reentrant program which, when executed via JCL
I apologize if this has been covered; but perhaps the difference is
due to the presence of some other module in the authorized library vs
the non-authorized library. Just because your application is
statically linked, it doesn't ensure that some system service that you
are calling doesn't do a
Not sure how posting an AMBLIST would violate any NDA, but what if
you changed the member and csect names.
Me neither, but the decision was made above my pay grade.
You did say this was
z/OS 1.10 so it is not like this is an ESP or something like that.
True. z/OS is not the sensitive
48 matches
Mail list logo
