Thanks! That is indeed part of it. My SIGABND was *not* driven for an operator CANCEL, however. No answer for what signal if any might be driven by an operator CANCEL.
I guess I am going to have to experiment. Annoying. I will have to build something just to test this because my "real" program is too likely to make a mess if cancelled (as it currently stands). Not directed at you, Steve, but just in general: it is so easy to respond to these questions with "RTFM" but it's a heck of a lot easier to point out information that you already know than to find answers that you don't know. I searched on signal and cancel, signal and s0c1, etc., etc. The page you cite of course has the "S0c1" answer, but all the searching in the world won't find "s0c1" on that page. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? On 7/13/2012 11:42 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > I sure don't see any mapping whatsoever of C library/UNIX signals to > or from traditional z/OS terminology: S0C1, CANCEL, etc. Hmm. P. 226 doesn't help get you at least part way there? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
