I had always thought (assumed?) that when IBM changes a manual, they changes
the manual number, i.e.,  SA23-1370-60 to SA23-1370-61

This is kind of scary.

You periodically check the checksum of the manuals to see if there were
changes?


 On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:07:50 -0400 Mike Shaw <[email protected]> wrote:

:>We review a LOT of IBM publications in our work. There are many many cases
:>where doc changes are made and are NOT noted in the manual. It seems to be
:>an artifact of the 'continuous deliver' method of doc delivery used on the
:>IBM doc web site now.
:>
:>Mike Shaw
:>MVS/QuickRef Support Group
:>Chicago-Soft, Ltd.
:>
:>
:>On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 11:24?AM Binyamin Dissen <
:>[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:>> Very interesting.
:>>
:>> The SA23-1370-60 that I have is dated 2023-09-24 while your link is dated
:>> 2024-10-28.
:>>
:>> No change to the manual number.
:>>
:>> Nothing in the "Summary of Changes" regarding TESTART.
:>>
:>> No change bars.
:>>
:>> Just 04 and 08 are flipped.
:>>
:>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:10:55 +0000 James Mulder <[email protected]> wrote:
:>>
:>> :>https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/SSLTBW_3.1.0/pdf/ieaa900_v3r1.pdf
:>> :>
:>> :>
:>> https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.1.0?topic=xct-testart-tests-validity-alets
:>> :>
:>> :>BROWSE    SYS1.MACLIB(TESTART)                     Line 0000000084 Co
:>> :> Command ===>                                                  Scroll
:>> :>*01*  RETURN-CODES:
:>> :>*
:>> :>*        x'00' - The specified ALET is 0.
:>> :>*        x'04' - The specified ALET represents a valid entry on the
:>> :>*                workunit access list.
:>> :>*        x'08' - The specified ALET represents a valid entry on the
:>> :>*                PASN access list.
:>> :>*        x'0C' - The specified ALET is 1.
:>> :>*        x'10' - The specified ALET/EAX will result in invalid ART
:>> :>*                exceptions.
:>> :>*        x'14' - An unexpected error occurred in the service routine,
:>> :>*                IEAVXTAR.
:>> :>*        x'18' - The specified ALET represents a valid CADS ALET.
:>> :>
:>> :>
:>> :>Jim Mulder
:>> :>
:>> :>
:>> :>
:>> :>
:>> :>-----Original Message-----
:>> :>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On
:>> Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
:>> :>Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 1:53 AM
:>> :>To: [email protected]
:>> :>Subject: Re: Seerms like TAR requires AR mode
:>> :>
:>> :>Both SA23-1370-50 (2.5) and SA23-1370-60 (3.1)
:>> :>
:>> :>state
:>> :>
:>> :>08 Meaning: The specified ALET represents a valid entry on the DU-AL. If
:>> CADS=YES was specified on the call, the ALET does not point to an entry for
:>> a SCOPE=COMMON data space.
:>> :>Action: None required. However, you might take some action based upon
:>> your application.
:>> :>
:>> :>Which manual do you have?
:>> :>
:>> :>
:>> :>On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:37:54 +0000 James Mulder <[email protected]>
:>> wrote:
:>> :>
:>> :>:>  You are getting the correct result.  Your ALET is on the PASN access
:>> list, and you are getting return code 8, for which the documentations says:
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>Meaning: The specified ALET represents a valid entry on the PASN-AL.
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>Action: None required. However, you might take some action based upon
:>> your application.
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>  The documentation you are quoting is for return code 4.
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>Jim Mulder
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>-----Original Message-----
:>> :>:>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On
:>> Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
:>> :>:>Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 2:37 PM
:>> :>:>To: [email protected]
:>> :>:>Subject: Re: Seerms like TAR requires AR mode :> :>Looks like the
:>> return code of TESTART is not correct (or I am misunderstanding
:>> :>:>something):
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>The TESTART expands to
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>+         TAR   AR3,1
:>> :>:>+         LA    15,4(0,0)
:>> :>:>+         BRC   4,IHB1242K  (BC)
:>> :>:>+         LA    15,0(0,0)
:>> :>:>+         BRC   8,IHB1242K  (BC)
:>> :>:>+         LA    15,8(0,0)                         <<<====
:>> :>:>+         BRC   2,IHB1242K  (BC)         <<<====
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>TAR: 2 - ALET designates the primary-space access list and does not
:>> cause exceptions in ART :>
:>> :>:>TESTART: 08 - Meaning: The specified ALET represents a valid entry on
:>> the DU-AL. If CADS=YES was specified on the call, the ALET does not point
:>> to an entry for a SCOPE=COMMON data space.
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>I am getting R15=8. The ALET is, in fact, in the PASN (begins with 01).
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>Am I missing something obvious?
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 16:58:14 +0000 James Mulder <[email protected]>
:>> wrote:
:>> :>:>
:>> :>:>:>Correcting to add a missing word  "is"
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>I would anticipate that if you looked at systrace in a dump taken
:>> after you successfully used the ALET after getting a CC3 from TAR, you
:>> would see a PGM  02B (if this was a data space reference) or a PGM  02C (if
:>> this was an address space reference when you used the ALET.  Recognizing
:>> the cases when the z/OS program check handler will resolve these exceptions
:>> and return to the program is the part of what TESTART would add that is of
:>> interest in your case.
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>  I will also add my recollection of how the TESTART macro came to
:>> be (as much as my memories from 38 years ago can be trusted).
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>  During the testing of MVS/ESA SP3.1.0, some MVS test cases using
:>> the TAR instruction were failing intermittently due to unexpected CC3.
:>> After some investigation, there was an "oh crap, the TAR instruction cannot
:>> provide all of the function that we intended" moment.  And that resulted in
:>> the
:>> :>:>:>creation of the TESTART macro and the IEAVXART PC routine.   If you
:>> look in the change activity in the TESTART macro, you will see
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>$D0=DCR0277  HBB3310  870831  PD162M: TESTART macro :>
:>> :>:>:>DCR was an acronym for Design Change Request (typically used for
:>> something that was not part of the original FPFS (Final Programming
:>> Functional Specification)) for the release.
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>Jim Mulder
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>-----Original Message-----
:>> :>:>:>From: James Mulder
:>> :>:>:>Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 12:23 PM
:>> :>:>:>To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]>
:>> :>:>:>Subject: RE: Seerms like TAR requires AR mode :> :>  I would
:>> anticipate that if you looked at systrace in a dump taken after you
:>> successfully used the ALET after getting a CC3 from TAR, you would see a
:>> PGM  02B (if this was a data space reference) or a PGM  02C (if this was an
:>> address space reference when you used the ALET.  Recognizing the cases when
:>> the z/OS program check handler will resolve these exceptions and return to
:>> the program the part of what TESTART would add that is of interest in your
:>> case.
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>  I would guess that Principles of Operation is correct, and that
:>> the reason that "So I did the SAC 512 before the TAR and all of a sudden I
:>> got the expected CC." is that in between your  CC3 and your expected CC,
:>> you used the ALET and caused the PGM 02B or PGM 02C, and the program check
:>> handler resolved the exception so that your next TAR (regardless of the ASC
:>> mode) got the CC that you expected.
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>Jim Mulder
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>-----Original Message-----
:>> :>:>:>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On
:>> Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
:>> :>:>:>Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 12:01 PM
:>> :>:>:>To: [email protected]
:>> :>:>:>Subject: Re: Seerms like TAR requires AR mode :> :>My use is to
:>> determine if an ALET that I added is still valid. Obviously my RESMGR
:>> should pick up if the target address space (non-swapable) goes away, but I
:>> am a great believer in belt and suspenders. Not obvious to me what TESTART
:>> would add.
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>But, at any rate, is the POPs description incorrect and is AR mode
:>> required (as my experience shows)?
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>.On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:23:15 +0000 James Mulder <[email protected]>
:>> wrote:
:>> :>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>  On z/OS, the TAR instruction is not useful by itself.  You
:>> should instead use the TESTART macro, which PCs to the operating system to
:>> analyze a CC3 from the TAR instruction.
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>Jim Mulder
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>-----Original Message-----
:>> :>:>:>:>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On
:>> Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
:>> :>:>:>:>Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 1:53 AM
:>> :>:>:>:>To: [email protected]
:>> :>:>:>:>Subject: Re: Seerms like TAR requires AR mode :> :>On Mon, 2 Jun
:>> 2025 18:14:58 -0400 Tony Harminc <[email protected]> wrote:
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>:>On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 at 17:48, Binyamin Dissen < :>
:>> [email protected]> wrote:
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>:>> The doc for TAR states
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>:>> "The operation does not depend on the translation mode - bits
:>> 5, 16, and :>> 17 of :>> the PSW are ignored."
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>:>> But when I issue it in primary mode I am getting CC=3 but when
:>> in AR mode :>> the :>> expected condition code.
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>:>You've been around long enough to know how unlikely it is that
:>> the :>implementation on your machine differs from the PofO. Not impossible,
:>> :>certainly, but very very unlikely. Maybe a bit more likely on a zPDT, but
:>> :>even there they've done a very good job, and presumably have much the
:>> same :>tools and test cases as the Real Iron people have.
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>The machine is an 8561.
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>As I have been around long enough, I already did the
:>> investigations. I ignored the CC=3 and used the ALET and all was fine.
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>So I did the SAC 512 before the TAR and all of a sudden I got the
:>> expected CC.
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>It might be kind of strange to try the TAR in primary as the ALET
:>> is unused in that mode,  but as the code was running PRIMARY and would only
:>> need AR if the ALET was good, I deferred the switch.
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>:>So... SLIP (or whatever) and look at your registers, ARs, etc.
:>> for both :>cases. It is a bit annoying that there doesn't seem to be a way
:>> to see :>exactly which exception caused the CC=3, but I'm betting you'll
:>> find some :>difference in your regs or ARs.
:>> :>:>:>:>
:>> :>:>:>:>Already confirmed.
:>>
:>> --
:>> Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]>
:>> http://www.dissensoftware.com
:>>
:>> Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
:>>
:>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
:>> 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

--
Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to