On 19 July 2011 16:46, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:16:26 +0000, Gibney, Dave wrote:>> >>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.
Well... I don't know, but I speculate that the failure to load most REFR modules into store-protected storage in the early days was an attempt to avoid providing an easy to use mechanism for unauthorized programs to put arbitrary data into protected storage. In MVT (and SVS for that matter), if you could build a DEB in key-zero storage it would be accepted based only on the storage key, and while there were several tricks for doing this (e.g. ENQ on a resource name containing the DEB), loading modules this way would have made it trivial. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
