SYSSTATE has never entirely "felt right" to me. For some things -- like ARCH -- it makes sense. "Hey assembler, when you assemble MVS macros, assume that the XA instructions are available." That makes sense. Your routine might get called by code running on a pre-XA box? Then don't specify that ARCH -- it will then work either way.
But for AMODE -- well, code is either AMODE 31 or AMODE 64 -- it's not permissive; it's not both. There is no AMODE ANY. So what do you specify for SYSSTATE if you have code that can run either way? Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Monk Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 2:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Problems with ESTAEX invoked in AMODE 64 when assembled without SYSTATE AMODE=64 "When you run in AMODE 64 (as indicated by specifying AMODE64=YES through the SYSSTATE macro) and invoke ESTAEX, your ESTAEX routine will get control in AMODE 64." https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.4.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r4.ieaa200/iea3a2_Description3.htm So looks like you have to specify the SYSSTATE macro in z/os 2.4. Joe On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:30 PM Thomas David Rivers <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I've run into an interesting problem with ESTAEX > when it is invoked in AMODE 64 without SYSTATE AMODE=64 > set at assembly time. > > That is, this is code that could potentially run in either AMODE 31 > or AMODE 64... so it's not assembled with SYSTATE AMODE=64. > > What it _looks_ like from the dump is that ESTAEX is invoked > (via PC - this is just problem state) and on return, the address > in the PSW has the AMODE bit set - but we are in AMODE 64, > so now my PSW address is pointing to the wrong place. > > Of course - this doesn't work well when AMODE=64 and my > program gets lost. > > This didn't seem to happen with zOS 2.3 - we've recently upgrade > to zOS 2.4. > > Anyone seen anything like that for newer zOS? > > I _suppose_ I could always drop to AMODE 31 for invoking ESTAEX, > but then my ESTAE exit would be in AMODE 31, and I'd prefer for it > to be in the AMODE at the time ESTAEX is called... > > This "feels" unlikely - as the PC is hopefully just going to stack the > current PSW address for its return... and I'd be very surprised > of something changed that... but - I thought I would just toss > that out to see if anyone has an idea. > > - Thanks - > - Dave R. - > > > > > -- > [email protected] Work: (919) 676-0847 > Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
