As David Andrews mentioned it could be that the program tries to read after EOF.
And I think You mentioned that with larger allocation it took a longer time to
abend ?
So maybe it is like this:
- The program always reads one more time after EOF.
- Sometimes the position after EOF is on the end of the block, sometimes not.
- When allocated on physical disk, this doesn't matter.
- But when allocated as a &&-dataset, it is somehow (?) allocated in virtual
memory.
- And when the extra read is done when positioned at the end of the block,
it "translates" to a read at an invalid memory address.
I'm not sure if this theory is applicable, but I have some experiences with
reading
outside of the last record and it's varying result depending on whence it was
in- or
outside of the (last) block.
Thomas Berg
====== Robert Pelletier ====== wrote 2006-02-23 21:40:
Thanks all. Going to try to get the source code. Not sure they will give it up.
Thanks again.
Bob Pelletier
Connecticut Student Loan Foundation
Rocky Hill, Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--
__________________________
Mundus Vult Decipi
__________________________
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
