> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Martin Kline
>
> "Strange and wonderful" was a good guess. The code which scans the
buffer
> does not check for 3270 orders, and may simply overlay them. Aparable?
Since
> the description reads, "The entire string specified by BUFFER is
searched,
> using the character @," I suppose this depends on how you want to
interpret
> the text.
Since the SCAN searches "The entire string specified by BUFFER" using
the character "@", it apparently does not manipulate anything other than
what it's specifically seeking. Thus, I'd wager the defense against an
APAR would rely on the premise that "you should know" you need a SF[E]
with at least an attribute byte, immediately following a SBA.
Of course, you would then counter with the fact that x'50' (ampersand)
and x'7C' ("at-sign") are valid values within a SBA sequence (and
possibly within an [extended] attribute byte or sequence), so SCAN
should be changed to recognize the SBA and SF[E] values and skip the
appropriate number of bytes before continuing.
> Another strange behavior is that the system symbols are converted
whether
> or not 'SCAN' is specified on the USSMSG macro, but the other '@'
variable
> substitutions occured only when SCAN was specified. Also aparable?
That would seem to be a more "open and shut" case for an APAR.
-jc-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
