In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
01/17/2006
at 09:44 PM, David Alcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>You really need a S99RBX any time SMS might be involved in DYNALLOC
>because of the additonal error fields there with extended information
>on the problem.
Are you saying that the messages produced by an SVC99 RB extension are
not the same as those produced by DAIRFAIL? Is that documented?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
