On 13 July 2012 12:10, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > > >I mean, gee, SIGILL is documented as "Invalid object module (hardware and > >software)." > > > I didn't know that! SIGKILL is routinely used from command lines as an > unconditional cancel, because SIGKILL can't be caught. Don't trouble > yourself with writing a handler for it. >
Mightn't that be sigILL, as in Illegal? That sounds like a reasonable match to a program check 1. And there's this strange escalation of MVS operator commands. At > first, the S222 from a CANCEL command couldn't be caught. But > someone saw a requirement to catch CANCEL (what's wrong with > MODIFY or STOP?) So, now S222 can be caught. So they had to > invent FORCE for programs that ignored CANCEL (and other reasons). > FORCE can't be caught. I'm waiting breathlessly for the next round. > Catching an S222 was possible from the very first release of MVS (OS/VS2 R2). But it has never been possible to retry it - you can do as much work as you like in your ESTAE exit itself, but you can't get back to the mainline. FORCE is most certainly not just a stronger form of CANCEL - it's a different beast entirely. FORCE calls memterm, which takes out the entire address space. This may not be a big thing when translated into UNIXy terms - so you kill a process, ho, hum - but in MVS terms it can have bad results, loss of global resources, etc. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
