On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:09:39 -0500 "Robert A. Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote:
:>At 12:29 -0600 on 12/09/2011, Robert Ngan wrote about Quick test for :>empty stack?: :>>Someone is getting a S0E0 abend with interrupt code of X'34'. :>My memory might be going but since X'E0' = 224 it is in the range :>that is supposedly reserved for USER SVCs? Thus is the existence of :>this ABEND Code being issued by IBM a violation of the rule that SXYY :>ABENDS are supposed to be associated with SVC YY and thus requiring :>that USER SVCs not attempt to issue any ABENDs of the form SXYY which :>IBM has hijacked? A USER SVC is supposed to have the ability to issue :>any ABEND where the YY is it's ID and X is 0-E (FXX being reserved :>for the SVC YY not defined ABEND)? I seem to remember other cases :>where IBM has hijacked ABEND codes that are supposed to belong to :>USER SVCs (although it just might just this one case and its various :>Interrupt codes). Has IBM ever published a list of USER SVC Numbers :>some of whose SXYY codes have been stolen in the documentation with a :>warning that if you use the YY number, you should not try to use the :>associated X modifier so as to avoid confusion with IBM's use of YOUR :>SXYY ABEND code. Has IBM reserved SYSTEM abends for user code? In fact, IBM takes quite a bit of the USER codes as well. -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.
