Those are commands, not functions. ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 2:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why is my second Rexx SYSCALLS read failing?
The RC values are documented here for all SYSCALLS functions (including -21, -22, ...): https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdocs%2Fen%2Fzos%2F2.5.0%3Ftopic%3Dvalues-returned-from-syscall-environment&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C1b5dd8dd2547425096d408da94211308%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C637985167026192689%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rhp0K68GqYNO3o19hMLnmujc4tn5DD9iDurJPtWqY04%3D&reserved=0 Note though that there is also language saying that various "other" RC values can be produced by "some" functions without a list or table of the exceptional functions and values. That lack may well call for an RCF. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 1:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why is my second Rexx SYSCALLS read failing? On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 11:29:07 -0500, Charles Mills wrote: > ... Bad open of course yields a bad fd which yields a -21. It is all new > code and I had not tested open failures specifically. > >Not sure where you saw the example that you cited. The IBM doc that I am >looking at has the following for an example (in its entirety): > >"open /u/linda/my.exec" o_rdwr+o_trunc+o_creat 700 > >which is of course useless with regard to how one checks for errors. IBM could >do better, especially if open is atypical in how it reports errors. > >(https://secure-web.cisco.com/13jzWG1lrHqEXmpDKoJJLtxK58LUEE-w7MwQJoqcI5dCBwUnFVuID-iR3lBlE7-Wo1J_vegpFadoEVj-gztP8ZYY16w-BgRS12SbJLVq7U51ACQdgy9aYeknjbVDbC-w4W081H2VXOLzsuvX8wjLyrrYkamPX3Yn9Dq-T0lG8fS6LA30Xer-0f0oF2uKnMQFPiRS3lpR9uL5XKoNH753cfkqPkRzlkcWdKMtWR0HYU-Bg4SSdz-Xsa_juOgS-UPgLNqVLYCGwCUEn1OSXEvhhCoQpaOA0JezC2d8Q5K-rPkcL2ln0Ei4QWbIcEvcs2niT9f2ookUac5Z1JhawVgEX4MXWgkWuf8zhSlRsq57hgklUvNvJt-3I2ceF831mzIC2ZnrVHkVqBAhc75_mlG0ToVfg82XXZEeO7-ljyztc5aw9e2CKDwtG9yRZTq-xY56_7Pk7uuGv1G5Op3b6DetMWg/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdocs%2Fen%2Fzos%2F2.5.0%3Ftopic%3Ddescriptions-open__%3B%21%21Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg%21L7gY3iiW9XBWoek9Fsjq0fdDz_0RnVlGyAETtbKnP6KER4VB3pgLFDxBipH85Zm3rn1tFStB-MFvZSGT9_NWtMbWqqg72Q68YLVSfUef%24 > ) > -1 is highly typical among UNIX functions, perhaps even in the purview of "ça va sans dire", but there are numerous atypical cases for which the programmer must check ERRNO; for example EAGAIN. If you intend to read from a transient stream (pipe, terminal), you should check EAGAIN. -21 is extraordinary. If it's not clearly documented (where?) it merits an RCF'; probably even an SR. -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
