John - maybe you have a better version of the IARCP64 macro than me - but I do not see any explicit documentation about the extent size in the macro prolog at all (my version is from z/OS 1.13).
Perhaps you could point us to the line number in the SYS1.MACLIB(IARCP64) member that contains the documentation? I am aware of the 1Mb extent size due to a presentation I read about IARCP64 a couple of years ago, however as far as I can tell, it is not mentioned in either the macro prolog or the Assembler Service Reference manual. I do not believe that Dave Day's post was unreasonable at all - and its sentiments about controlling the extent size were (IMHO) sensible for someone converting from 31-bit CPOOL usage. Rob Scott Lead Developer Rocket Software 77 Fourth Avenue . Suite 100 . Waltham . MA 02451-1468 . USA Tel: +1.781.684.2305 Email: [email protected] Web: www.rocketsoftware.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: 25 August 2012 14:03 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: What size memory object backs an IARCP64 I confess to some dissatisfaction with both the tone and the substance of Mr Day's OP. He was seeking to use a facility about which he clearly knew nothing in detail while|whilst complaining that its syntax was not identical to that of its [very approximate] AMODE(31) analogue. Moreover, the prolog[ue] is in the macro; and my advice that it read it was thus straightforward. Moreover again, this advice is not novel. Several IBM contributors here and on the assembler list have noted that the 'prologs' should be consulted for detailed information of this kind. I should have been prepared to walk him through the use of IARCP64 if he had first made even the minimal appropriate effort to understand it. Things are bigger above the bar; he clearly had no grasp of this notion; and without it I judged that he was not likely to make much progress. These things said, I agree with Shane that those of us who have used and know something about the above-the-bar facilities that IBM is making available have an obligation to be helpful to colleagues who have less experience with them. Excluding Shane's post from this stricture explicitly, I must also confess that I have little patience with a class of other posts that seem to me to be insular, suspiciously unanimous, risk-averse, and mediocre. I shall try to do better. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
