Peter Thanks when is you say not every CDE is built by z/os are you referring to the IDENTIFY
Macro which a user can could a CDE using a. Address in storage Also I noticed that the retry address is only 4 bytes I guess then to you would have to retry to a label in the program that has RP instruction And have your recovery set it up before returning to RTM Thanks > On Dec 25, 2023, at 12:18 PM, Joseph Reichman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank you > > Peter I started looking at it while trying to enhance the GRECOV > >>> On Dec 25, 2023, at 8:48 AM, Peter Relson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> <snip> >> If bit CDCEX in the CDE meaning there is an CDE extension would that imply >> the module is RMODE 64 since CDXEntpt64 is a double word >> </snip> >> >> A simple glance at a CDE in storage for a module that is not RMODE 64 would >> show you that this is not the case. >> >> Every CDE built by z/OS has a CDX, as does every LPDE. The CDCDEX / LPDECDEX >> bit is on in each.. >> Not every CDE is necessarily built by z/OS (to our regret). >> >> A module is RMODE 64 (or has an RMODE 64 extent) if it has an extent that is >> above 2G. >> Extents are normally in the area pointed to by CDXLMJP of a major >> (non-alias) CDE. >> Since those extents have only 4 bytes for the extent address, that won't cut >> it for RMODE 64. >> >> A CDX (when it exists) might have an "XTL64". The interface parts of a CDX >> are mapped by IHACDX. The extent list 64 (mapped by IHAXTL64) has an 8-byte >> address for an extent. >> >> There is also the fine point of whether you are talking about "is the module >> defined as RMODE 64" or "is the module in 64-bit storage" or "is some extent >> of the module in 64-bit storage". >> >> The answer to the first question is within the directory entry. AMBLIST is >> one way to display that information (or doing a BLDL or a DESERV GET). >> The answer to the second and third questions lies with looking at the XTL64. >> If CDXXTLST64Addr is not 0 and if every extent is above 64 then you'd >> consider the answer to the second question to be "yes". >> If CDXXTLST64Addr is not 0 and if some extent is above 64 then you'd >> consider the answer to the third question to be "yes". >> If CDXXTLST64Addr is 0 then the answers to the 2nd and 3rd questions are >> "no". >> >> It does happen to be the case that if you look at the extent list pointed to >> by CDXLMJP, if one of the extents has an address >= x'7FFFF000', that >> correlates to "the extent is actually above 2G" and in that same entry the >> length is "1" (these being indicators that the real extent definition is in >> the XTL64 because it does not fit in the XTLST. >> >> Peter Relson >> z/OS Core Technology Design >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
