On Apr 7, 2013, at 08:52, Lizette Koehler wrote:
> As I reviewed the differences between IKJEFT01, IKJEFT1A, and IKJEFT1B, I
> think that the way the entry points return the Return code is not clear.
> For IKJEFT1A and IKJEFT1B they seem similar. Which may be confusing the
> issue.
>
I think it's a nightmare. I often wonder what the designer's
objective was, and why he didn't simply provide the construct:
LOGOFF rc
... to allow the programmer to control the content of R15 when
the TMP returns control to the caller (presumably the initiator).
That's how Rexx does it. That's how POSIX shell does it. It's
simple and elegant.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> On Behalf Of Walt Farrell
>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:17 AM
>>
>> The TMP expects to run as the one and only jobstep task, so I was a bit
>> surprised at
>> your mention of ESTAI as my first reaction was "hmm, I didn't think one
>> could ATTACH
>> the TMP and have things work properly." I know that in my long ago
>> experiments I
>> always LINKed or XCTLed to the TMP from my jobstep program, and used ESTAE to
>> catch any abends.
>>
Is this maximally violated by the (new-fangled) "address TSO" in
Rexx for OMVS? Or is the separate ASID Rexx creates for the
TMP the functional equivalent of a jobstep?
-- gil
