On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:39:14 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote: > >> ..., freeing zero length is an instant disaster. > That ought to be a no-op.
>You can't free 0 bytes at address 0? Now that is an inconsistency. Ah >- the subpool thing on FREEMAIN. Is that also true for STORAGE >RELEASE? > The "subpool thing" oughtn't be checked unless one or more bytes are to be freed. >>> So to be consistent, a non-zero address with appropriate access setup >>> (primarily key) should probably be returned. > >> Consistent with what? It can't return an address because one wasn't assigned. > >Sure - it could assign one. It wouldn't have to be unique; just >access-exception correct. > This is somewhat reminiscent of allocating a data set with VOL=SER=xxxxxx, SPACE=(CYL,0), when no space exists on volume xxxxxx, which I am told succeeds. I hope, likewise, that such a data set can be freed without a check of the validity of the primary extent. -- gil >Tony H. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
