I don't know, but I think I can make an educated guess: because that's a program[mer] error, not a system condition. Beyond that, I suppose it goes back to their design philosophy.
I have to admit that makes sense to me. sas On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:01 PM Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, for any IBMers reading this, the full reason code is 8A004220. > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Charles Mills > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 2:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: IARV64 - why ABEND rather than return with reason code? > > I have an application that uses IARV64 REQUEST=GETCOMMON,COND=YES. I have > tested with an unreasonable request size and gotten a return with a reason > code as expected. > > I recently had the IARV64 fail, due to my bug that I have located. But what > surprised me is that I got an SDC2 ABEND rather than a return with a reason > code. I would rather get a return because I can handle it more neatly than > an ABEND (although yes, I do catch the ABEND with ESTAE). Why the ABEND > rather than a return? Can I force a return rather than an ABEND? Is this > documented somewhere? (I obviously did not see it.) > > In case it matters the reason code in question is xx0042yy, Guard size is > greater than object size. (And again, I have located the underlying bug; I > don't need help with that; just with "why ABEND rather than return?") > > z/OS V2R2 and V2R3, if that matters. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
