On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:27:36 -0400 Jim Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Jim Mulder/Poughkeepsie/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/20/2006 10:16:21 PM: :>> IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 09/20/2006 :>> 07:59:55 PM: :>> As to why subpool 0 is shared, I haven't been able to think :>> of a reason. I don't know of anything that the initiator :>> obtains in subpool 0 that the jobstep task can free (unless there :>> was a time when programs would free the the EXEC PARM= :>> parameter storage after processing it), or anything that the jobstep :>> task would obtain from subpool 0 that needs to survive the termination :>> of the jobstep task. :> If subpool 0 was not shared, then the EXEC PARM= parameter storage :>would be the only thing in its 4K page (or its 2K page in the :>old days). The rest of the page would be wasted. Sharing subpool :>allows the jobsteb program to obtain the subpool 0 storage :>remaining on this page. Perhaps this was a consideration in the :>days of expensive, scarce storage. This is only a guess on my part. The way I handled a similar situation, where I was invoking a subtask with data but did not want to take care to manage the area and free it when the subtask ended was to allocate it in a specific subpool and then give it over to the subtask. -- Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
