And to your rhetorical question -- Yes it is called a loose canon.
[Back to flinging REXX...]
Steve Thompson
On 9/6/2023 4:16 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote:
Lionel,
Does the storage not dropped create a problem? Or is this just a thing you
want cleaned up?
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:02 AM Paul Gilmartin <
[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:46:25 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
This is not meant to be snide, just a citation of sorts: these behaviors
were discussed long ago when Rexx was introduced to VM/CMS, are established
canon. (Is that redundant? Can there be UNestablished canon?)
I used to know that. Perhaps I saw it in the (CMS?) Ref. That has gotten
thicker and harder to search. I see no information about storage in:
<https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=instructions-drop>
And I once considered writing an asynchronous ATTACH and find no
description of whether REXX storage compaction is likely to move
storage addressed by IRXEXCOM. I use SYSCALL SPAWN instead.
--
gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
