On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 11:00:01 -0700, Greg Dyck wrote: >On 8/6/2016 9:49 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> I don't believe there's a timing hazard; DYNALLOC will go to the end of the >> name >> space and wrap before it reuses the DDNAME you got. > >Dynamic allocation *will* *not* reuse the DDNAME. After generating a >name it checks to see if it is already in use, and will generate a new >name if necessary. > I'm being facetious, but what happens if it gets to the end of the name space
IIRC, long ago, I did a DUMMY allocation and it converted an existing DUMMY allocation. I had a bizarre reason that this didn't satisfy. > > Why was it designed this way? Cui bono? > >Given the slow speed of the processors at the time, along with measuring >the duration between IPLs in days or less, why would there every be a >problem? > What century is this? You stated two reasons while suggesting that they're no longer relevant. Programmers' lives would be simplified if the entire allocation conversion process were elininated. Well, mostly. Probably there's some legacy code which never FREEs, assuming allocation conversion is sufficient. Such careless code would then suffer TIOT overflow. Compatibility be cursed! I'd use S99NOCNV (everywhere, but grudgingly) but neither BPXWDYN nor (AFAIK) TSO ALLOCATE supports it. RFE material? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
