In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/29/2005
at 04:31 PM, "Farley, Peter x23353" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Agreed. What it *does* say, though, is the answer to the question
>originally raised about not being able to define arbitrary areas of
>memory as programs. There's no *documented* way to do it
Original Message-
From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IDENTIFY restriction [was: RE: ISKE/IVSK]
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/29/2005
at 09:49 AM, "Farley, Peter x23353&qu
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/29/2005
at 09:49 AM, "Farley, Peter x23353" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IEA2A931/5.1?SHEL
>F=IEA2BK34&DT=20030429143021&CASE=
I don't see no stinking memo. What I see is essetially the same text
that was th
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/28/2005
at 03:50 PM, "Edward E. Jaffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Wow! Looks like the CDE resulting from the "secret" SVC 41 interface
Considering that IBM documented it in the logic manuals, it can hardly
be considered secret. But it is *not* and never has been
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/28/2005
at 02:52 PM, "Edward E. Jaffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>So, when IBM "removed" the function from MVS, they created a "secret
>handshake" (available to privileged code only) to allow the loader
>itself to continue using the interface? Cute!
I doubt that
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IEA2A931/5.1?SHEL
F=IEA2BK34&DT=20030429143021&CASE=
-Original Message-
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IDENTIFY restrict
Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote:
I so much missed the memo that I still use the capability hundreds of
times every day on z/OS 1.6 Ed, what are you talking about?
http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506&L=ibm-main&P=R102705
--
--
> From: Edward E. Jaffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:49 AM
>
>>>Huh?? Which form of IDENTIFY do you believe can be used to create a
>>>major CDE from GETMAINed virtual storage?
>>
>>The one documented in the old Linkage Editor and Loader PLM.
>
> That capability was
Another way around this that I've seen is to load a non-reentrant module and
modify it to point to your getmained program. Do an IDENTIFY to that glue
code and then you can LINK/ATTACH etc.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Well, he's not the only graybeard who didn't get that memo. I
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/28/2005
at 10:10 AM, "Farley, Peter x23353" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Well, he's not the only graybeard who didn't get that memo. I missed
>it too. I just looked it up,
Where? The Devil is in the details.
>IDENTIFY *must* specify an
>address within an already
Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
Wow! Looks like the CDE resulting from the "secret" SVC 41 interface
does *not* have the CDSYSLIB bit turned on, meaning any
authorized/privileged program that tries to LOAD the resulting module
will receive abend S306. Understandable.
Thanks to Alex Brodsky for point
Jim Mulder wrote:
So, when IBM "removed" the function from MVS, they created a "secret
handshake" (available to privileged code only) to allow the loader
itself to continue using the interface? Cute!
The undocumented loader interface has been there at least as long as I
have been here (
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 06/28/2005
05:52:46 PM:
> Jim Mulder wrote:
>
> > If this is just a matter of curiosity, surely
> >you old time hackers can do more than speculate. For example,
> >look in the MVS Diagnosis Reference to find the module name called
> >by the IDENTIFY SVC
Jim Mulder wrote:
If this is just a matter of curiosity, surely
you old time hackers can do more than speculate. For example,
look in the MVS Diagnosis Reference to find the module name called
by the IDENTIFY SVC. Find some microfiche older than SP4.3.0., and
read the module prolog.
As alw
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 06/28/2005
02:53:54 PM:
> In a recent note, Farley, Peter x23353 said:
>
> > Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:10:25 -0400
> >
> > Well, he's not the only graybeard who didn't get that memo. I missed
it
> > too. I just looked it up, and Ed is correct -
In a recent note, Farley, Peter x23353 said:
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:10:25 -0400
>
> Well, he's not the only graybeard who didn't get that memo. I missed it
> too. I just looked it up, and Ed is correct -- IDENTIFY *must* specify an
> address within an already-loaded/fetched/etc. pr
Well, he's not the only graybeard who didn't get that memo. I missed it
too. I just looked it up, and Ed is correct -- IDENTIFY *must* specify an
address within an already-loaded/fetched/etc. program.
Now why'd they go and do that? That means I can't use that old CompSci
trick of compile-to-mem
17 matches
Mail list logo
