Jon, What I meant was two consecutive GETMAINS, followed by a FREEMAIN, followed by a GETMAIN.
However, the point is, the vendor's code was at risk before the change in operating systems. They were just lucky before. Like Ed said, they should have been testing with options to detect this. The change in operating systems just exposed code that was always wrong, but lucky in the past. Tom Harper IMS Utilities Development Team Neon Enterprise Software, Inc. Sugar Land, TX -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: z/OS upgrade That was my test, I just didn't put all the code in my sample. The first getmain put 100 x's into the area and then freemained it. The second getmain was at the same address but on 1.9 it was zeroed out and on 1.10 it wasn't. Jon L. Veilleux [EMAIL PROTECTED] (860) 636-2683 -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Harper Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: z/OS upgrade Jon, If you are trying to infer a difference in GETMAIN behavior here, this test does not do that. I'm fairly certain that in the 1.10 case, the storage was obtained from an existing page, and thus was not cleared. Depending on the storage layout, this could happen in 1.9 as well. If you change the test to do two GETMAINs, alter the storage to non-zeroes in the second area, do a FREEMAIN, and they re-obtain the same amount of storage again, I think you would see that it is not cleared in 1.9 either. Tom Harper IMS Utilities Development Team Neon Enterprise Software, Inc. Sugar Land, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
