Also, sometimes SVC 0D processing gets in the way. There are times when you want the ease, so to speak, of a program check. But in released ISV code, I don't put those in, and even try to remove those I come across nowadays.
BTW, my hats off to whoever at IBM that assigned 13 to the ABEND SVC back in 1963/4-ish. No triskaidekaphobe, he (assuming he due to the era). Later, Ray -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Friday December 15 2006 06:01 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: S0C1 with ILC 6 > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: S0C1 with ILC 6 <snip> > > What's wrong with the ABEND macro? Preferably preceded by a WTO with > ROUTCDE=11. > > -- > Tom Marchant I'm too lazy??? <GRIN> Actually, I only have one program in production which does this. The reason I do it, is because the program is called both in batch and CICS. I cannot return a "failed" indication to the caller because that is not part of the "architected" interface (which was in place before I rewrote the code). But I cannot just return "junk" to the caller with no indication of a failure. So I decided to abend. But how to __easily__ do that in both batch and CICS? The S0C3 works, and is very infrequent, and cannot be missed by the programmers (it drives them nuts). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
