Hi Steve,
You're close! I'll go through your points in order:
1. Correct. CEEPIPI is called with request code 3 (init_sub). The PIPI
table is set up correctly. For the demonstration case (IBM's sample to
keep things simple) I took a working program and added an intentional
ABENDS0C3.
For your supplementary questions, I decided to create this demonstration
case when I saw LE presenting user abends for system abends that
occurred outside of the LE environment. We are in the process of
developing an application that is making use of CEEPIPI, and on the
"happy path" everything works fine. As for the treatment of abends
outside the LE environment, this is not changed behavior. However, that
does not automatically mean it is correct behavior.
2. Correct. CEEPIPI is called with request 4 (call_sub), and the called
subroutine runs OK.
3. Correct. The abend occurs between two calls to CEEPIPI.
Note, however, that it is not necessary to call any subroutines to get
this situation. If the driver program abends after receiving control
back from CEEPIPI after the init_sub call, the abend information will
still be altered by LE's recovery routines.
Regards, Gord Tomlin
Steve Comstock wrote:
Gord Tomlin wrote:
Just looking for input as to whether this is "working as designed"
before I report it as a defect...
If a program that uses CEEPIPI to call HLL subroutines abends while
*not* in any of the HLL subroutines, LE recovery processes the abend
and transforms a system abend into a LE user abend. Meanwhile, the
associated dump is written to SYSUDUMP rather than CEEDUMP.
Let me understand a little better:
1. Your driver initializes an LE environment for running
subroutines by calling CEEPIPI with a request code of
3 (init_sub)
So I assume, for the moment, your PIPI table is set
up correctly.
[BTW, is this new behavior for you? Was it working before
and now it acts differently? Or is this your first time
through the PIPI process?]
2. You call your subroutine by calling CEEPIPI with a
request code of 4 (run_sub) and it presumably runs OK
3. You call one or more additional subroutines (or your
first subroutine again)
at some time during this process, between two calls
of subroutines from your PIPI table, your driver
abends and gets an LE UCC
Is that about right?
This situation can be recreated by using the samples "ASMPIPI" and
"HLLPIPI" from the LE Programming Guide", and adding the abend of your
choice (I used EX 0,*) after the label TSUB in ASMPIPI. Instead of
seeing a ABENDS0C3 in ASMPIPI, you will see a ABENDU4036-2 associated
with CEEPLPKA. The only sign of the original abend is in the system
trace table. Needless to say, LE's recovery routines have not made a
positive contribution to locating the original problem.
One of the requirements for a program that uses CEEPIPI to call
LE-conforming HLL routines is that the calling routine *not* be a
LE-conforming program, so it seems nonsensical on the surface that
LE's recovery routines would try to interpret the abend.
The LE Programming Guide says:
- init_sub creates a LE environment and "sets the environment dormant
so that exceptions are percolated out of it.
- for call_sub, CEEPIPI activates the LE environment before the called
routine is invoked, and after the called routine returns, the
environment is dormant.
It appears to me that LE is doing an incomplete job of
ignoring/percolating abends that occur while outside of the LE
environment. Does anyone know anything to the contrary?
Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
