>[snip] I would take a closer look at the call position of the COBOL module at 
>level 3, at position 4396.
>The name is HRDRFREA. >>maybe this is all misleading ...


 I agree with your findings. Module HRDRFREA is calling DSNHLI at this offset. 
So far nothing special. However, the job runs under control of Smart/Restart 
that intercepts just about anything, and probably needs to, in order to 
fullfill it's duties to make the job restartable. I don't know much about the 
internals or Smart/Restart, but from another case I had to invesitgate, I 
learned that it is intercepting SVCs like open, close, as well as BSAM/QSAM 
read/write routines, etc., etc.
What makes it worse is the fact that we also use StarTool DA which should be a 
help in diagnosing appliation problems.
Smart/Restart is the first to learn about an exception (or is it after LE?), it 
recognized StarTools DA is also part of the game. The former then advises the 
later to take an SVC dump. The later has unfortunate dump options built in its 
code that request only mininmal content (not TRT, etc.) and forces system dump 
options to be ignored.
Result of all that is misleading information in the dumps. Lack of a system 
trace, I'm unable to see the real events that happened.
I only wanted to understand why a S0C4-11 was reported when I had expected a 
S0C1. I did not talk about the following so far for that reason.

Based on what I know so far, I'm convinced the problem seen is a delayed effect 
of a storage overlay somewhere else in the Cobol code. Support people 
identified the current input record, removed it from the input file and the job 
runs fine. Happened to more times so far. This why I suspect that something 
with that record leads to false behabiour of the code, such as writing beyond 
the end of a table.

What I also did not mention to anyone so far: I see a single line message from 
Smart/Restart that says a S0CA (Decimal Overflow) has happended. Not indication 
where, no dump at this time. Nothing but silence. This was just a bit before 
the S0C4-11 messages start to show up. I'm hoping for a system trace in the 
SYSMDUMP that I was requesting to be added to the job (mentioned in a previous 
post). Kind of seems to be a case liek the one Skip Robinson mentione (S0C7). 
We'll see.




--
Peter Hunkeler



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

Reply via email to