On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:35:20 +0100, David W Noon wrote: >On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:12:20 -0500, Tom Marchant >([email protected]) wrote about "Re: >program-name is unresolved/uncallable" (in ><[email protected]>): > >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:08:06 -0400, Farley, Peter wrote: >> >>> IMHO that is just sloppy application coding that would not pass a peer >>> review by me. It is trivially easy to set and test a flag to remember you >>> already issued a given message already and bypass issuing it repeatedly, >> >> I'd go even further and say that such a message should not be written to >> the console. It is not something that an operator should be expected to >> deal with. > >It probably was not intended to go to the console. > >Most of these messages begin life as a WTO with ROUTCDE=11, which is >really intended for the programmer or application user. Unfortunately, >some -- perhaps many -- sites reconfigure console routing so that these >messages also go to route code 2 (or similar).
ITYM that some consoles are configured to display messages with ROUTCDE=11. Perhaps that is the issue at the OP's shop. Perhaps it was an assembler program that issued a WTO with routing code 11, but the OP didn't give enough information to reach that conclusion. I assumed that it was Cobol DISPLAY ... UPON CONSOLE. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
