On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 16:39:59 -0500, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>I know I have used STCK and STCKF in my "vendor" code. I think it's all still
>maintained, but not sure that every licensee is paying for maintenance.
>
We had one of those with a vendor product on CMS for which we had neglected
maintenance;
not only because of cost but also because of maintenance phobia ("If it ain't
broke ..."). We
sighed with relief on 01/01/00. Then it failed on 02/29/00 when a library
routine called the
date invalid. I circumvented overnight by replacing the call to library date()
with SQL/DS,
which we were using otherwise.
I once went to APAR because IEBCOPY SYSPRINT timestamps were about 20 seconds
ahead of those in the job log. IBM, laudably, said in the APAR that they fixed
it by
changing from (unspecified) to TIME.
TIME with the STCK option is hardly better than plain STCK.
Advantages of STCK are:
o precision
o serializatioon
o uniqueness of returned value.
But most systems I use admirably do not allow non-privileged users to access
the hardware clock.
--
gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
