The visiting-Martian mode again! Paul Gilmartin writes: <begin extract> Sheesh! They couldn't make an old-style data set a special case of an extended data set, and/of then couldn't treat a below-the-bar buffer as a special case of a 64-bit-addressable buffer? <end extract>
It would be nice to know what is in the womb of time, but secure knowledge of the future is hard to come by. One can readily enough stow a 32-bit address in a 64-bit pointer field, but the inverse operation is much more difficult, not even possible in general. The control-block overflow problem, of which this is but one example, is and seems likely to remain an intractable one. --jg On 9/13/12, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 13, 2012, at 08:12, Bill Fairchild wrote: > >> Try Googling for a simple sample program using EXCP. I'm sure there must >> be several on the CBT tape. I think you would have to use EXCP rather >> than BSAM since BSAM apparently only supports 64-bit buffer addresses for >> extended data sets, and your data set may not be extended. >> > Sheesh! They couldn't make an old-style data set a special case of > an extended data set, and/of then couldn't treat a below-the-bar > buffer as a special case of a 64-bit-addressable buffer? > > Conway's Law. Sigh. > > What does an extended data set use in place of CCHHR? > > -- gil >
