On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:19:36 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM wrote: >""Tom Marchant"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:44:05 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >> >> >I'm sorry - I hate to start up this "reentrant" thing again but would > >> anyone >> >(everyone? <g>) like to suggest a term to describe a program that is >> >technically reentrant but that cannot be multi-tasked in a single >jobstep >> >due to some hard-coded externality? This is not just an excuse to >re-start >> a >> >semantics war. I'm writing documentation and would like to apply the >> correct >> >term to the IBM FTP client, which has the RENT bit set but which uses >the >> >hard-coded DD names INPUT and OUTPUT and therefore effectively cannot >be >> >multi-tasked in a single jobstep or region. >> > >> >> I'd call it "serially reusable," or simply not discribe it's >> reusability. >> >> IMHO, it should have been coded with an ENQ or some other suitable >> method of serializing it's use it so that there would be no >> conflicts. >>
>I'd say, it is simply *not* reentrant and has the RENT bit set >incorrectly. Anyone can set the RENT bit on his module, but that does >not mean it is coded reentrant, which apparently is also true for this >code. > >Kees. You're right, Kees. "The module is reenterable. It can be executed by more than one task at a time." -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
