As usual, OCO makes an external judgment all but impossible. We are at the mercy of an IBM development group's not necessarily disinterested judgment.
Would it not be possible, without breaching OCO, to provide a more quantitative, confidence-inspiring statement than ". . . there would be considerable cost to convert all of these to ESAIR." This conversion is in the womb of time, inescapably so; the only intereresting question is that of its timing. --jg On 8/13/12, Robert A. Rosenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > At 17:45 -0400 on 08/13/2012, Jim Mulder wrote about Re: REPLACEMENT > ASID SHORTAGE: > >>"Since DB2 and MQ use the ESAR instruction, they cannot be >>called from a job using a reuseable ASID. Most annoying." >> >> I have been told that their are many instances of ESAR >>to the caller's address space throughout the DB2 and MQ >>code, so there would be considerable cost to convert all >>of these to ESAIR. > > If the calling sequence (ie: the parms), return codes, and usage of > the two instructions are the same (ie: Changing a ESAR instruction to > a ESAIR one requires no other change to the code) then a simple mass > find/replace and recompile would seem to be a simple way of fixing > the issue. If on the other hand, changing one instruction to the > other requires manual updates/changes to each use then I can see why > they feel that it would be expensive/impractical. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
