Tom,
Thanks for the response. Your answer is what I suspected/expected, but
wanted to make sure. I'm writing some code that makes heavy use of cell
pools, and am wanting to make sure I can't exit my code without releasing
any/all storage that was acquired by my code. I was looking for a way to
absolutely make sure. As the exit logic gets ever more complex to cleanup
before leaving, I was looking for a way to simplify some of it.
--Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: CPOOL Delete vs. STORAGE RELEASE using SP=
Dave,
Storage Release gets rid of the cell pool, but aesthetically, I would do a
cell pool delete, followed by the Storage Release for the other storage.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat Oct 04 12:07:01 2008
Subject: CPOOL Delete vs. STORAGE RELEASE using SP=
If I build a cell pool in subpool #1, does a STORAGE RELEASE specifying
only SP=1 get rid of the cell pool as well as all other allocated storage
in sub pool #1, or do I have to CPOOL DELETE the cell pool as well?
--Dave Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
