In 8675686473977785.wa.peterteneyckfarmfamily@listserv.ua.edu,
on 12/03/2014
at 01:51 PM, Peter Ten Eyck peter_tene...@farmfamily.com said:
It would seem that coding SYSUDUMP in the JCL and running LE with
something like TERMTHDACT(UADUMP,,96) would be the way to go.
SYSUDUMP is fine as
In
caajsdjigfmpcacjfeyy+dt_hoaagxv97zjtayee3y6h_hq5...@mail.gmail.com,
on 12/03/2014
at 01:36 PM, John McKown john.archie.mck...@gmail.com said:
I must somewhat disagree, or perhaps just partially. IPCS is great.
I really like it. But for batch cycle jobs, I would strongly
recommend a product
Batch cycle JCL standard... CEEDUMP or SYSUDUMP.
I think that if the LE runtime is running as TERMTHDACT(UADUMP,,96) an LE dump
will be produced if a CEEDUMP DD is coded or not. But if you do not code the
SYSUDUMP DD you will not get a dump is some cases were LE cannot produce one..
correct
=user.SYSMDUMP
(the FREE=CLOSE bit is needed if you have recursive abends. Usually
only the first is interesting.)
In article 2785252460650909.wa.peterteneyckfarmfamily@listserv.ua.edu you
wrote:
Batch cycle JCL standard... CEEDUMP or SYSUDUMP.
I think that if the LE runtime is running
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Don Poitras sas...@sas.com wrote:
I resisted learning IPCS for years. I'd be in deep trouble without
it today. For LE programs, you get the best of both SYSUDUMP (you
can see all the storage you may need) and CEEDUMP (IP VERBX LEDATA
gives you the same stuff.)
My concern is that if CEEDUMP is coded instead of SYSUDUMP, that in certain
cases (we just had a SOC1 like this) no dump is produced. The LE environment
was not able to produce a dump.
What about old COBOL programs or Assembler programs when using CEEDUMP?
It would seem that coding SYSUDUMP in
On 12/3/2014 12:51 PM, Peter Ten Eyck wrote:
My concern is that if CEEDUMP is coded instead of SYSUDUMP, that in certain
cases (we just had a SOC1 like this) no dump is produced. The LE environment
was not able to produce a dump.
What about old COBOL programs or Assembler programs when using
