I would question this. Why not post the section from the system trace table showing this?
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 05:15:15 -0400 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. - -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
