What do you mean with 'new CF datasets'? New, empty Couple Datasets?
That could explain why information is lost. CDSs can be migrated, while
retaining the contents.
A Sysplex wide IPL should not loose data, it can be beneficial to solve
some problems, that cannot be solved with individual IPLs of
I think that there are [at least] two usefully separated issues here.
I looked yesterday at a macro definition I wrote 16 years ago that I
still use but had not updated in the interval. As a part of its
bullet-proofing it conditionally removes some framing single quotes
from input values in the
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 08:51:34 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
... We do expect that IBM code will have been tested,
in effect that such errors as we find in it will be subtle and not
crudely obvious ones; and in this expectation we are now often
disappointed.
A sort of critical mass is approaching.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
And I have known IBM support to reply to my minimal test
case similarly to, Why do you need this program to work?
It appears to do nothing useful.
Seriously? At that point, I'd probably send them a 10,000-line module
On Mar 2, 2013, at 20:04, Charles Mills wrote:
I recall distinctly the hardware having fetch protection but there being no
apparent OS support for it.
That matches my old recollection of an Old Timer's recounting
his astonishment at having read a dump in which a Protection
Exception
To wit, nowadays, the absence in z/OS
of complete support for 64-bit virtual. (The less said of COBOL the better;
it's not part of the OS.)
Nice blinders-on statement!
COBOL may be one of the ugliest languages around, but it's also (still, I
believe) the most heavily used!
Why not cater to
In 0551413286133992.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
03/03/2013
at 08:54 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
And I have known IBM support to reply to my minimal test case
similarly to, Why do you need this program to work? It appears to
do nothing useful.
You'll get more
The late John Cocke observed that
. . . an error example should have the minimal length and
complexity required to exhibit that error.
There is no appeal from this judgment. Dissent from it is
disqualifying, unseriösische.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
(Sorry, I couldn't keep doing that to Paul, so I changed the subject)
Newer IBM macros rely on some newer (for
various values of newer) assembler functions.
But I'd guess that not one of them relies on a function that is a
diagnostic function. Yes, macros for a z/OS release might indeed rely
I can tell your not irish
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll
understand. - Chinese Proverb
On Mar 3, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
shmuel+...@patriot.net wrote:
In
On 3/3/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
For what it's worth, IHASDWA was enhanced in z/OS 1.11 with a GR32=NO|YES
option so that if you must use the HLASM optional function, you can do so.
We will change every IHASDWA in every software product we have to code
GR32=YES. THANKS for the great
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 08:51:34 -0500, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:
I come now to Tony Harminc's example:
begin extract
But SETRP generates a NOPR with an expression (related to the SDWA, I think)
obviously intended (and I think commented) to fail if the length is
not 0. However HLASM
paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
That matches my old recollection of an Old Timer's recounting
his astonishment at having read a dump in which a Protection
Exception appeared to have been taken on a fetch instruction.
I believe (with no good evidence) that it was controlled by
a
Saying that COBOL is not part of the OS is not the same as saying it is not
heavily used. Regardless of its ugliness or beauty, any given compoenent is
either part of the OS or not. And I also believe that COBOL is not. .
Bill Fairchild
Franklin, TN
“Political language is designed to
Walt,
I am not sure that we can resolve this difference of opinion.
As you know from the character of my posts over the years, I am not
anti-IBM; and neither do I want to hold it to impossibly high
standards.
IBM code has always contained some errors. How not? In the past,
however, these
Which adds to the need, IMO, for customers to have access to the PL/AS
compiler. Or for IBM to write a PL/AS structure to C struct transformer.
Not that it would help me, what with my lack of a C license.
--
For IBM-MAIN
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:55:27 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
... Now, however, I often see macros that just
do not assemble correctly; and I have been led, reluctantly but
inexorably, to the conclusion that they have not been tested
adequately or that they were not retested at all after being altered
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#31 REFRPROT History Question
Note this is part of old exchange of trying to get page protect for 3033
... included in same hardware hits for MVSA microcode assist
Date: 02/27/80 08:37:42
From: wheeler
re: yesterday's protect bit discussion. -- It
Yes Jim, that pretty much sums it up. We essentially plugged in a
new disk drive and suddenly DFSORT didn't work the way it used to.
Despite everything everyone says, something else is influencing
DFSORT's decisions on how much storage to use and where it's going
to get it. We do know
One thing that's worth pointing out - and is relevant to DFSORT and memory
in general but possibly not this situation in particular - is that Flash
Express capacity is not regarded as free or otherwise for the purposes of
STGTEST SYSEVENT.
This is, to me, a significant benefit of Flash Express
It's the predictable consequence of requiring end users to use a
different language, including OS interfaces, from that used
internally. IBM's posture that withholding PL/S provided a
competitive advantage should have been vitiated; mooted by
the advent of unbuldling, priced OS software, and
Some of you may have/use them, correct?
My limited understanding of flash memory is that they have a
limited life (ie X many writes)
My curiosity is about what happens when a FLASH card reaches its
limit of X many writes.
How do you handle these cards take it out and toss the old one out
W dniu 2013-03-03 22:35, Ed Gould pisze:
Some of you may have/use them, correct?
Correct and obvious since it's a feature of EC12
My limited understanding of flash memory is that they have a limited
life (ie X many writes)
Correct but limited. See below.
My curiosity is about what
Okay, while we are delving into nostalgia here.
I had a program that was failing with a S0C4 on either a 360/40 or 360/50 --
I remember the customer, and they had one of each, but don't recall which
box it was. Probably the 50 -- the 50 was a little touchy while the 40 was a
rock.
Anyway, I
According to IBM when the couple datasets are built new, as in our case, the
only was to do the V SMS,SHCDS(dsname),NEW commands.
I think it would be better to either have a PARM in IGDSMSxx when RLS is
being used, or provide a function in the IXCL1DSU program to generate a
connection. A new
One thing that's worth pointing out - and is relevant to DFSORT and
memory
in general but possibly not this situation in particular - is that Flash
Express capacity is not regarded as free or otherwise for the purposes
of
STGTEST SYSEVENT.
This is, to me, a significant benefit of Flash
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Mulder d10j...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
Amen to that, brother Gil. I have been saying for over
30 years that withholding PL/S was a huge blunder by IBM, and that
it continues to cost us dearly.
and i will throw in an hallelujah. Yes it is one of the most
NOT disagreeing with any of the sentiments, but here's a tiny glimpse into
one aspect of the battle.
At one point in the early 1990s, whatever IBM PartnerWorld was called at the
time went from being no-charge to $5,000 per year. We signed up, having no
real choice. One of the touted benefits
Hmm...I've been following this as well. So I'm wondering what affect
dynamically cutting over the disk subsystem by delete/draining from old aux.
while adding new aux. might have on STGTEST, prior to the IPL to
cleanup/cutover. I saw some strangeness during this type cutover on a DB2 LPAR
On 3 Mar 2013 10:43:30 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main John McKown
wrote:
Which adds to the need, IMO, for customers to have access to the PL/AS
compiler. Or for IBM to write a PL/AS structure to C struct transformer.
Not that it would help me, what with my lack of a C license.
Not just PL/AS to
At 08:54 -0600 on 03/03/2013, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Me? (was:
SAVE macro, I think):
And I have known IBM support to reply to my minimal test
case similarly to, Why do you need this program to work?
It appears to do nothing useful.
After getting this type of blow-off reply to a
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:39:59 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
At 08:54 -0600 on 03/03/2013, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Me? (was:
SAVE macro, I think):
And I have known IBM support to reply to my minimal test
case similarly to, Why do you need this program to work?
It appears to do nothing
Anyone take into consideration the lack of skills nowdays. I am sure IBM is
also running into this situation.
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll
understand. - Chinese Proverb
On Mar 3, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Paul Gilmartin
On 3/4/2013 12:56 AM, Scott Ford wrote:
Anyone take into consideration the lack of skills nowdays. I am sure IBM is
also running into this situation.
They're sort of coming full circle. The programming team on OS/360 had
to start from scratch, and many had experience only on the 7094. The
34 matches
Mail list logo
