On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:16:26 +0000, Gibney, Dave wrote:>> >> >> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.zos.r12.ieae200/progref.htm > >Actually, it not that I think it is no good, I think it's a long time coming. >The problem is that I also know of at least one program (central to our batch >processing) that exploits this "feature" :) > Relink it.
I'm biased. In our ISV development shop, we must test in the most restrictive environments. REFRPROT=YES; USERKEYCSA=NO, etc. If IBM would tell us about dirty GETMAIN, we'd use that, too. >So although I think it's "better" that reentrant marked modules actually be >reentrant and might have been inclined to enforce that had I had a say in the >mythical man month days, I don't get to just turn this on and say sorry to my >programmers and management. > Had the designers been thinking in those days, it would have been the standard; never an option. Simply, a developer screwed up and put the test of the AC bit in the wrong code path. It should never have been sensitive to the status of the library. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
