(I'm speaking on behalf of someone else's dog.) The code was badly written. Just how badly was never understood until the z196 choked on excessive MVCLs. Of course the hardware was at fault. That's why IBM supplied an MCL fix. But even before that fix was available, some relief was obtained from fixing sloppy code. BTW no one ever blamed the compiler AFAIK.
. . JO.Skip Robinson SCE Infrastructure Technology Services Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [email protected] From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 07/15/2011 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Z196 Cobol pgm with higher CPU Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> In <of046b3d6f.6a422665-on882578ce.0055252c-882578ce.0055f...@sce.com>, on 07/15/2011 at 08:38 AM, Skip Robinson <[email protected]> said: >'Reasonable' use of MVCL would not have caused a crisis in the first >place. What was unreasonable about the application's and compiler's use of MVCL? From what you described it was the z196 that was unreasonable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
