In
<cae1xxdhjs_8hfezdeb9la9-ppazqpniusxkdkjpyvcf0yyo...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 07/30/2014
at 11:11 AM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> said:
>My comment that elicited his "Nonsense!" response suggested very
>briefly that the device of making and marking a load module or
>program object reentrant or, better, refreshable could be used to
>share code across LPAR boundaries.
No, it suggested more than that. Had that been your comment then I
would have silently agreed. As written, "If 1) the execution loader
has brought a load module or program object into storage and 2) that
executable is marked refreshable and/or reentrant, the execution
loader will not bring second or subseq", it was clearly false. The
distinction between "into storage" and "into shared storage" is an
important one.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
