On 1/8/14, 10:20 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:47:58 -0500, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
I have always felt that the parent-goes-away-leaving-the-child-running scenario
was the *ix substitution for what we can do with XCTL in z/OS systems.
Ummm... Not quite. *IX supports t
John McKown wrote:
> I guess I had a major memory failure. I got into the books and you are
> correct. Even a global SRB is scheduled into an address space. It's just
> that global SRBs are dispatched before address spaces.
>
> I could have sworn that z/OS (MVS) had _something_ which did not run i
Tony Harminc wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 13:54, Alan Altmark wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:55:16 -0600, Paul Gilmartin
> > wrote:
> >
> >>But what plausible use do you envision that anyone or any group at IBM might
> >>have for the "model dependent" character? It requires that software
>
"McKown, John" wrote:
> I guess what Paul was really disappointed in, is that C uses binary zero as
> the NULL pointer. And it might be nice to be able to use the STOC command to
> store a value with:
>
> L R2,INTVAL
> LT R1,POINTER
> STOC R2,0(,R1),NZ
>
> i
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
> We've been using the STOC/LOC (STORE/LOAD ON CONDITION) instructions
> for some time...
>
> But, we just noticed a few words in the Principles of Operations (I'm
> quoting
> from the STOC discussion):
>
> When the condition specified by the M3 field is not met (tha
Donald Likens wrote:
> What I don't understand fills volumes and when I think I understand something
> I am often wrong. One of the things I don't understand is SRBs. I know this
> because what I am doing is not working! Note: When I use the option to turn
> off SRB processing and call (BALR) t
Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> I have the copy of the z/OS 1.12 LE Vendor Interfaces book,
> I've read the chapter about Storage management,
> I found the routines that the heap manager uses to do the storage
> allocations (for the primary and secondary extents) and I even saw
> that they
