Getting too complicate for this particular need. And cannot dynamically modify the program itself because we want the programs in CICS to be loaded into "read only" storage (ERDSA). That's the whole driving force behind making the HLASM re-entrant. Original problem is memory overlays by errant CICS user programs. Which, by happy "chance", I found yesterday because the nasty program tried to overlay a CICS control block and abended S0C4-4. So I could finally give the programmer an exact cause. The cause: storing beyond the bounds of a GETMAIN'ed area.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Bernd Oppolzer <[email protected]>wrote: > To be able do to maintenance to such subroutines that are called from many > other places, we usually put them in a module that is called dynamically. > We do > this using MVS-LOAD and we store the EP address statically in the calling > modules > CSECT (the LOAD is done, if it's zero, if not, it's already there). > > If the calling language doesn't support dynamic calls in an easy way, we > link a little > ASSEMBLER stub to the calling module (let it be PL/1 or COBOL or any other > language) > that only does the LOAD and stores the EPA. > > This works for us under IMS/DC control, too, and it should work with CICS, > too. The > only concern is, that the modules needed may have to be preloaded prior to > the > start of the CICS main task (don't know much about CICS, but with IMS, > this could be a > problem, because the modules would otherwise disappear). > > The modules are never DELETEd > until termination of the main task. > > Kind regards > > Bernd > > > > Am 27.06.2013 19:31, schrieb John McKown: > >> Not possible. This was designed 20+ years ago and is in use by about 650 >> different programs, combined CICS and batch, currently in production. >> Trying to get either all of the batch xor all of the CICS programs changed >> to use a different name is politically impossible. The original person >> should have made separate entry points. But we have some really _bad_ >> design decisions in a lot of programs, IMO. And we continue in that >> tradition until this day. >> >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Something akin to Mike Ward's scheme will work well. >>> >>> My own preference would, however, be for two different entry points. >>> It is ugly to take a foregone code-path decision at execution time >>> when it can be taken at bind time. >>> >>> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA >>> >>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>> ---------- >>> 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 > -- This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you? Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
