That gives me the x's in the third getmain which comes after the freemain. What I don't understand is why, when allocating from the bottom up, getmain uses the same storage for getmains after a free, but from the top down it uses different storage, I would think that it would reuse the freed up storage at the top. Anyways, I understand our problem and will have to deal with any vendor code and any old code that we have that pops up during our testing. Thanks to all! Jon
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 2:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: z/OS upgrade 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 This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
