Re: Looking for an old OSVS Cobol II v1.3

2021-01-20 Thread Brian Westerman
I have a client with an existing old z/OS V1.4 system that has COBOL-II at version 1.4 (5668-958), but the other person was correct that most programs will compile under the current versions of COBOL. Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subs

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Seymour J Metz
> You cited TWO sentences Yes, I cited two consecutive sentences, to provide context.. Why are you ignoring the sentence directly prior my response? > Can it be shorter and more ambigous? It's not ambiguous at all. Had it been a response to the first sentence then it would have directly follo

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Seymour J Metz
I believe that 3120 is one of the optimal block sizes for 80 byte records on 3330. At 3120 you get four blocks/track, at 3200 you get only three. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTS

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread R.S.
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 20:35, Seymour J Metz pisze: Whoosh! What is in dispute is the ludicrous claim '"Illegal" from SMP/E point of view'. Aps have *never* been Illegal from SMP/E point of view, or even from the POV of the free SMP versions. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~sm

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Seymour J Metz
Whoosh! What is in dispute is the ludicrous claim '"Illegal" from SMP/E point of view'. Aps have *never* been Illegal from SMP/E point of view, or even from the POV of the free SMP versions. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:13:44 -0500, David Spiegel wrote: >"... Formerly some utilities (Linkage Editor?) imposed a limit of 3120. ..." >Linkage Editor //SYSLIN had a Max BLKSIZE of 3200. > I stand corrected. Damn! So I was needlessly using 3120 all those years. It's mentioned (in an example) i

Reminder - Next meeting of the GSE UK Security Working Group - 4th Feb 2021

2021-01-20 Thread Mark Wilson
Greetings, A gentle reminder that the next meeting of the GSE UK Security Working Group, will take place on Thursday 4th February 2021 via Zoom – sessions will run from 09:00 to 18:45 GMT (UK time). This meeting is free to attend and is open to both GSE member companies and non-members. The ag

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Jousma, David
Not sure what the argument is about here, whether you can zap a SMPE module, or whether you *should* zap a SMPE module. We used to have this usermod for Fault Analyzer before it was a dynamic exit ++USERMOD (MSYS013) . ++VER(Z038) FMID(HBB77A0) .

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread David Spiegel
"... Formerly some utilities (Linkage Editor?) imposed a limit of 3120. ..." Linkage Editor //SYSLIN had a Max BLKSIZE of 3200. On 2021-01-20 11:25, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:03:01 -0600, Wendell Lovewell wrote: Could you please elaborate on your comment "never solved issue l

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread R.S.
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 18:43, Seymour J Metz pisze: Nonsense, there's nothing illegal about ++ ZAP. SMP does what you would expect, including warning you of conflicting service. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Seymour J Metz
Nonsense, there's nothing illegal about ++ ZAP. SMP does what you would expect, including warning you of conflicting service. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behal

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Seymour J Metz
I'm not aware of one; do XMIT and RECEIVE accept SYSOUT(), or prompt you for a class? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [000433f07816-d

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:15:26 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Would it be proper first to do BPXWDYN( INFO SYSPRINT ... ) >> and finally restore it to its initial state in case it hadn't been DSN(*)? > >Yes, but if you use the SYSOUT keyword then you don't need to reallocate >SYSPRINT in the firs

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread R.S.
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 18:10, Seymour J Metz pisze: There are ZAPs to change it in original IBM code. "Illegal" from SMP/E point of view No. Yes. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland == Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej wiadomoś

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Seymour J Metz
> Would it be proper first to do BPXWDYN( INFO SYSPRINT ... ) > and finally restore it to its initial state in case it hadn't been DSN(*)? Yes, but if you use the SYSOUT keyword then you don't need to reallocate SYSPRINT in the first place. > Is it necessary to CLOSE a file before REUSing it?

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Seymour J Metz
> There are ZAPs to change it in original IBM code. > "Illegal" from SMP/E point of view No. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of R.S. [r.skoru...@bremultib

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:03:01 -0600, Wendell Lovewell wrote: > >Could you please elaborate on your comment "never solved issue like non-SDB >(system determined blocksize) in XMIT and RECEIVE command"? > Long ago there were discussions here of ISPF SUBMIT's failing because of inadequate (default?)

Re: clarification please - is z/OSMF required for migrating z/OS from v2.3 to v2.4 ?

2021-01-20 Thread Marna WALLE
Hi Dave, Yes...I do tend to let topics move along until I feel I need to stumble in :). There is absolutely no doubt that the security for z/OSMF is the toughest part to get working. I would like to suggest trying out the Security Configuration Assistant, which was meant to help with that. It

Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread R.S.
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 17:03, Wendell Lovewell pisze: Radoslaw, Could you please elaborate on your comment "never solved issue like non-SDB (system determined blocksize) in XMIT and RECEIVE command"? I have been having an issue with TSO RECEIVE (and a program that also calls IEBCOPY) when SDB is

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Lionel B Dyck
I just ran a quick test thus: xmit x.y ds(test.pdse) outds(test.xmit) sysout(x) And the IEBCOPY messages were NOT displayed on the terminal but can be found using (E)JES or SDSF or ... under my userid in the spool. Does that satisfy the OP's request? Lionel B. Dyck < Website: https://www.lbd

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Ed Jaffe
On 1/20/2021 7:03 AM, Peter Relson wrote: That's the control I was thinking of. Some sites might set to an output class that is the 'bit bucket', i.e. a JES2 output class that specifies OUTPUT=DUMMY, and then you won't get any of the msgs (but won't have the option that Greg's approach provides o

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:43:20 -0500, David Spiegel wrote: > >ALLOC F(SYSPRINT) DA(DUMMY) REU >XMIT ... >ALLOC F(SYSPRINT) DA(*) REU > Would it be proper first to do BPXWDYN( INFO SYSPRINT ... ) and finally restore it to its initial state in case it hadn't been DSN(*)? (DISP(MOD) if it had been a da

TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no member list)

2021-01-20 Thread Wendell Lovewell
Radoslaw, Could you please elaborate on your comment "never solved issue like non-SDB (system determined blocksize) in XMIT and RECEIVE command"? I have been having an issue with TSO RECEIVE (and a program that also calls IEBCOPY) when SDB is "Y". IEBCOPY is having some sort of problem and

TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Peter Relson
Greg Price wrote What is PARMLIB->IKJTSOnn->TRANSREC->SYSOUT set to? Default of * goes to terminal. We use X which is a HELD SYSOUT class, so you can look at it later if there is a glitch, or ignore it if no problem. That's the control I was thinking of. Some sites might set to an output cla

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Lionel B Dyck
Or: TSO XMIT SYSOUT(x) No need for special allocations. Lionel B. Dyck < Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden -Original Message- From: IB

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread Chris Bowen
How about running in batch? //X010EXEC PGM=IKJEFT1A //SYSTSPRT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSUT1 DD DISP=SHR,DSN=dsn.tobe.xmited //SYSUT2 DD DISP=(NEW,CATLG,DELETE),UNIT=SYSDA,BLKSIZE=0, //

Re: Actual signs set by the DP (divide decimal) instruction

2021-01-20 Thread Jantje.
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:40:34 -0600, John Ganci wrote: >In order to see how z390 handles the signs, a short program that does some >divisions for (dividend,divisor) pairs having signs A,B,C,D (16 combinations) >was run on z390. Partial results: Why not post your test program code iso. of the re

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread R.S.
Thank you everyone for your answers. It seems I can redirect SYSOUT to DD DUMMY for a while. In fact I wanted to switch off IEBCOPY reporting, AFAIR it was LIST=NO. It can be specified in PARM field or as an optional parameter of COPY command in SYSIN. It is not exactly the same as whole sysout

Re: TSO XMIT and no member list

2021-01-20 Thread David Spiegel
Hi Paul ALLOC F(SYSPRINT) DA(DUMMY) REU XMIT ... ALLOC F(SYSPRINT) DA(*) REU Regards, David On 2021-01-19 21:29, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: The messages issued during TSO TRANSMIT are actually coming from IEBCOPY. By custom in most shops, DD SYSPRINT is commonly allocated to the terminal, i.e.

Re: Suppression of duplicate STC

2021-01-20 Thread Binyamin Dissen
Concurrently: DISP=OLD While technically it will not suppress the start, it will prevent it from running. During the life of the SYSPLEX? I guess it could rename its own member in PROCLIB to something else. And use some kind of shutdown process to rename it back. On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:58:16 +0

Suppression of duplicate STC

2021-01-20 Thread Peter
Hello Is there any configuration or any method to suppress starting the same started task Twice in zOS ? We are having zOS 2.2 Peter -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@list