Thankyou Peter and Tom for your recent comments. I'll open a PMR with the CICS group.
Wayne Bickerdike On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:29 AM Peter Relson <[email protected]> wrote: > So we conclude that Wayne's private area below 16M is too small for > running this utility. > > Regardless of that, since an 8M private area is not bizarre (1M would be > bizarre), I would expect the documentation for the CICS utility program to > include the minimum private area size below 16M required in order to run > it. > > I suggest that you ask (strongly) that that information be provided. It is > an environmental requirement for the utility. And look at all the time and > resource (both customer and IBM) that has already been wasted because of > the lack of that information. > > Maybe they'll find that someone accidentally, years ago, introduced an > RMODE 24 CSECT into the loadmod without needing it to be so and that > dragged the whole loadmod below 16M when it didn't need to and that the > module really should be above 16M. We had that happen for an LPA module, > but it didn't take too long before someone noticed it. > > Tom M mentioned x'7FA000'. If you count the x'2000' PSA (I don't know if > you should or should not), 8M is correct. That doesn't mean that all 8M is > available to a program (think TCBs and RBs). The area x'2000'-x'5FFF' is > the system region, but it is private. So having a private area of 8M > doesn't mean that you could do a GETMAIN for 8M. > > Peter Relson > z/OS Core Technology Design > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
