> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 4:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: BPXBATCH and DSNAME ENQs > >
<snip> > "unnecessarily" indeed. I would be overjoyed if exec() retained the > DDNAME allocations. It would be immensely useful to be able to do > fork(), then in the child a bunch of DYNALLOCs then an exec(), or > especially an execmvs(). I recognize fork() is a horse of a different > color: it creates a new address space which had better not have any > SYSDSN ENQs in common with the parent address space. > <snip> > -- gil Gil, Are you sure the exec() FREEs the allocations? That sounds strange to me. I know that fork() ends up in another address space (except where _BPX_SHAREAS is honored) and so the program invoked via exec() ends up without the original address space's allocations. I didn't realize that exec() itself did any deallocation of allocated DDs. I may test that tomorrow. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
