SDWACLUP is a one way communication from RTM to the recovery routines. It notifies them that this is an abend from which no retry is possible.
This behavior is documented fairly well as others have indicated. Another possible resource that helped me was to sit down with a cup o joe and inspect the resulting SYSTRACE line by line. And review the LOGREC as this will provide evidence of the actions of all recovery routines for which RECORD=YES was specified. Happy hunting. Greg 724-799-7142 Sent via mobile device -------- Original message -------- From: Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> Date: 08/27/2013 8:30 PM (GMT-05:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about ESTAE(X) Hey Ed, thanks for the quick answer. Unfortunately NI SDWAERRD,X'FF'-SDWACLUP did not seem to make any difference. Perhaps I am wrong in my whole model of what is going on. I can't see the higher ESTAE(X)(s) if any; I am just inferring their existence and parameters. If I don't do any of this, if I don't issue any ESTAE(X), then *something* gets control on "normal" ABENDs but apparently not on operator cancels. (The code is LE with TRAP(ON,SPIE). LE is documented as not processing Sx22 ABENDs.) Incidentally, setting a retry point and issuing a new ABEND there did not work either, contrary to my hopes. BTW, the issue is not Sx22 abend codes per se. If I issue ABEND X'122',,,SYSTEM (from my code, but outside of ESTAE(X) recovery) then LE condition handling intercepts it. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:56 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about ESTAE(X) On 8/27/2013 4:52 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > Question 1: Just want to confirm that I am reading the documentation > correctly On ESTAE(X), TERM=YES basically says "Yes, I want my > recovery routine driven for operator cancel and things like that" and > TERM=NO says "only drive the recovery routine for 'normal' ABENDs." Is > that basically correct? Yes. > Question 2: (Assuming I am reading TERM=YES correctly) if an ESTAE(X) > TERM=YES is chained after an ESTAE(X) TERM=NO, is there any way to get > the chained recovery routine to percolate a TERM=YES-type ABEND? My understanding is that a TERM=NO exit is skipped when SDWACLUP=ON. But, that understanding comes strictly from empirical evidence. I have not seen it in the code... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
