On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:15:51 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
>
>> "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().
>
>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.
>
Ah, a gentle RTFM ("F" stands for "Friendly" -- I had to search
for it.) In:
Title: z/OS V1R7.0 UNIX System Services Programming:
Assembler Callable Services Reference
Document Number: SA22-7803-08
2.30 exec (BPX1EXC, BPX4EXC) -- Run a program
...
The exec service dynamically inserts into a job a new job step that has
no allocations associated with it, with the exception of the MVS data
sets that may be built into the STEPLIB environment for the new process
image.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
