Actually you can define a model 27 or 54 in a IBM DS8k with a number of
cilinders not multiple of 1.113 (1 disk model-1 or 1 extent), but the
remaining space will be wasted
For instance in my shop there are defined model 27 with 32760 cilinders,
29,4 extents. The DS8k use 30 extents to define this
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:41:14 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
Geez, IBM -- the Language Reference and the Library Reference are in
conflict with each other and both incomplete. Both should reference
LANGLVL(NEWEXCP).
Please send in a RCF.
--
Tom Marchant
I don't see anything in the manuals to indicate that
we have to prevent LOAD from running at the same time.
You do not need to prevent that.
Is there an undocumented requirement to single
thread multiple LOADs for the same module within a region?
There is no such requirement.
Only the first
As supplied by IBM, the IEESYSAS
proc does not contain a DD statement for any of those DDnames.
We have not modified the IEESYSAS procedure. There is none of the dump DD
statements in there.
--
Peter Hunkeler
--
For
Steve Horein wrote:
ARCHPRNT is a canned PROC provided by the vendor.
Ok, thanks. I will leave my can-opener in my drawer. ;-)
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
ARCHPRNT is a canned PROC provided by the vendor. On a side note, ARCHPRNT
is also the program name. I no longer work for a company that uses
InfoPac/VDR, but do have an Exec or two that uses Address ATTACH
ARCHPRNT to support this. Executing an ISPF SRCHFOR ARCHPRNT against
either the system
On 22/01/2015 10:41 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Thanks. Yeah, that's it. Put in NEWEXCP and now I get my std::exception
routine called with bad allocation.
Geez, IBM -- the Language Reference and the Library Reference are in
conflict with each other and both incomplete. Both should reference
I haven't been programming using above the bar storage lately, and I understand
I'll have to do some RTFM. However, I need a quick answer to the following
question, if possible.
I see the following at the end of a job step:
IEF032I STEP/UTIL/STOP 2015021.1318
CPU: ..
VIRT: 9832K SYS:
Since the topic drift here has been extensive, could those of you
arguing the merits of (type of parse scan, pointer
implementation, why RPG is dead, etc.) change the subject line
appropriately.
After all, we must police ourselves since our beloved moderator
has retired
Hello All, Sorry for late reply. Yes, I found the issue was the size which
I was using. But mistake has been corrected and its working for me now.
Thanks for all help .
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Jousma, David david.jou...@53.com wrote:
When you specify the grow command, the size you
Caveat: insert daily digesting delay here...
1) I didn't see anyone else mention (yesterday) but, shouldn't it be
RecordSize(77 4096) to match AvgLRecl---77, MaxLRecl--- 4096? It's true that
CISize--- 4608 allows 4601 (for non-SPANNED) but that's not how Willie's
ListCat reads.
2) As far
Any installation out there running CICS 3.2 under z/os 2.1?
Thanks
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Bernd -
Thanks much!
Really. :-)
Yes, I did not mention it, but when I catch conditions (in a generic sense
of the word) in a signal handler then CEE3DMP shows the real error location.
You can return from a signal handler so the stack is preserved. It appears
the stack is unwound on a catch()
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
On 2015-01-21 15:12, Greg Dyck wrote:
Normal (non-directed) LOAD processing serializes fetch processing for a
module and only performs
relocation of ACONs/VCONs once when the module is fetched.
Thanks for all responses.
Sam Siegal asked: 1) Does this only happen on second and subsequent load?
Since it loads correctly all the time except for rare situations in a
multitasking environment, we are assuming it is related to a second load
running concurrently with the first load.
2) What
Charles: there is no such class and IMHO no such reason.
Dennis: System SSL is add-on to TCPIP and it is used by TCPIP and its
protocols like TN3270 or ftp.
IMHO it's up to TCPIP administrators to know what ports, protocols,
services are in use.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
W
Isn't System SSL protected by a RACF class? You could deny everyone in warn
mode and find out who was using it.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Givens, Dennis W.
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:29 AM
To:
CICS/TS 3.2 is supported until September 30, 2015.
Mark Jacobs
Christian Birr mailto:christian.b...@birrconsulting.de
January 22, 2015 at 2:59 PM
Works, but unsupported. ;-)
Christian
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
Im
We are running Siemens hospital software that needs CICS 3.2 and that's why we
still have it. We will be dumping the Siemens product in a year or so, and of
course we are not paying for their maintenance any more. But we want to upgrade
to 2.1 for the other sosftware.
-Original
That seems to me like undesirable behavior. I will discuss
this with the owner of the code to see if that could be changed
in a future release.
Thank you very much indeed, Jim. Much appreciated.
I mentioned that I had opened a PMR for this. I will post its number tomorrow.
--
Peter Hunkeler
Does anyone understand or have any comments on the following analysis? This all
revolves around the TIOCSTPN and TIOCJSTN fields in the TIOT. There seem to be
three cases, depending on how the job was invoked. For each, assume the job is
named JOBNAME and the step is STEPNAME. blanks means,
Not sure, but don't forget about three-tiered names with named PROC steps
and jobsteps within.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Phil Smith
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
On Wednesday, 01/21/2015 at 06:26 EST, Mark Regan
netsfw_sysp...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have six sandbox LPARS that are located on two different CECs. Three
on one
and three on the other. Each of the three only have one 10GbE OSA to use
as we
don't want them to share an OSA with prod or
Thanks for this insight but understand if the TCPIP admins knew this type of
informationI would never had posed the question.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:22 PM
To:
Don, thanks. To clarify, there is no ABEND type condition. The exception in
questions is out of storage -- bad_alloc.
Where is machine block documented or defined? cib_machine is a void*.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
On Jan 22, 2015 4:53 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
Ah, thanks. I keep forgetting that. Oddly named manual, IMHO.
Anyway, I don't think I have a CIB. I think this condition is totally
internal to C++ -- not an LE condition.
Please take at least a quick look at the le manuals. As
Charles,
Same header. struct __mch. But you're right, if the LE ESTAE isn't invoked,
none of this is going to get set. Open an ETR and ask IBM how to do what
you want.
__le_api.h
In article 04ba01d0369a$cc5f3740$651da5c0$@mcn.org you wrote:
Don, thanks. To clarify, there is no ABEND type
Can I ask IBM *how*? Don't I have to say catch() traceback is broken and
let them argue with me?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Don Poitras
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 7:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Charles,
Sorry about that. Almost all the work I do in IBM C is in 64-bit.
In article 04b301d03699$53ae6a60$fb0b3f20$@mcn.org you wrote:
Grumble, grumble. __le_traceback() is AMODE 64 only. (Noticed that after
spending about an hour trying to get the example to compile.)
Charles
Mmm. I'm going to make the 64-bit leap one of these days. I should set the
option and compile everything and see what errors I get. That would be a
first clue as to how big a leap.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf
Sure, you can ask how. There's no guarantee you'll like the answer. :)
In article 050801d036c3$c42cd720$4c868560$@mcn.org you wrote:
Can I ask IBM *how*? Don't I have to say catch() traceback is broken and
let them argue with me?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
Grumble, grumble. __le_traceback() is AMODE 64 only. (Noticed that after
spending about an hour trying to get the example to compile.)
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Don Poitras
Sent: Thursday, January 22,
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:47:40 +0100, R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2015-01-22 o 19:38, John Norgauer pisze:
Any installation out there running CICS 3.2 under z/os 2.1?
Just curious: why to install old unsupported CICS under new shining z/OS?
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:18:58 -0500, Mark Jacobs - Listserv
Charles Mills wrote:
Not sure, but don't forget about three-tiered names with named PROC steps
and jobsteps within.
Indeed. And that changes it yet again. Here's the JCL:
//JOBNAME JOB MSGLEVEL=(1,1),MSGCLASS=O
//SOMEPROC PROC
//PSTEP EXEC PGM=SHOWTIOT,COND=(8,LT)
//PEND
//STEPNAME EXEC
I am beginning to suspect I do not have a meaningful CIB. My CEE3DMP
includes the (default) option CONDITION but there do not appear to be any
CIBs in the dump.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer
On Jan 22, 2015 3:26 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
Don, thanks. To clarify, there is no ABEND type condition. The exception
in
questions is out of storage -- bad_alloc.
Where is machine block documented or defined? cib_machine is a void*.
Look in LE vendor interface manual for
You're correct, December 31st, 2015. Sorry for the confusion.
Mark Jacobs
Norbert Friemel mailto:nf.ibmm...@web.de
January 22, 2015 at 6:48 PM
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:47:40 +0100, R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2015-01-22 o 19:38, John Norgauer pisze:
Any installation out there running CICS 3.2 under
Ah, thanks. I keep forgetting that. Oddly named manual, IMHO.
Anyway, I don't think I have a CIB. I think this condition is totally internal
to C++ -- not an LE condition.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Sam
On 22 January 2015 at 16:51, Phil Smith p...@voltage.com wrote:
Does anyone understand or have any comments on the following analysis? This
all revolves around the TIOCSTPN and TIOCJSTN fields in the TIOT. There seem
to be three cases, depending on how the job was invoked. For each, assume
In
cafmxnwkytsctkf3gpxufyx6qtek9tnj7m1mnjos0ilv-k4o...@mail.gmail.com,
on 01/22/2015
at 03:51 PM, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net said:
Look in LE vendor interface manual for all of the LE control blocks.
All? DCLCB? FCB?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
I mentioned that I had opened a PMR for this. I will post its number tomorrow.
Here it is: 60902,113,848
--
Peter Hunkeler
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
As noted and as planned, you should be able to carry CICS Transaction
Server Version 3.2 forward to z/OS 2.2 and have yet another IBM supported
middleware-cum-OS release combination. In other words, there's no need to
delay your z/OS 2.2 plans (even for particular LPARs and/or z/VM guests),
and
The CIB is described in __le_api.h. There's a useful function for producing
tracebacks, __le_traceback. The doc has sample code calling it in C.
https://www-304.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.bpxbd00/letraceback.htm?lang=en
In article
ceecib is documented in LE vendor interface manual
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
Bernd -
Thanks much!
Really. :-)
Yes, I did not mention it, but when I catch conditions (in a generic sense
of the word) in a signal handler then CEE3DMP shows the
Thanks! Do you have any idea whether __le_traceback will produce meaningful
results in a situation in which CEE3DMP does not output a useful traceback?
The C++ stack has apparently already been unwound when C++ enters a catch()
block. The catch() block appears to have been called from the point at
Hello,
We have a need to determine who/what is using the z/OS SYSTEM SSL. We were
hoping that the SYSTEM SSL executables (GSKKYMAN, GSKSRVR) can be used in some
fashion to determine this information.
Anyone aware of how to use typical z/os tools to make this determination?
Z/OS 1.13 system.
Hello Charles,
I hope that I am not directing you in the wrong direction ... that is:
I hope that the CIB that you see contains the information that you need.
What we did at the recent site that I worked: we had a LE exit that
got control at all exceptions - no matter what kind - and did all
Am 22.01.2015 um 20:22 schrieb Charles Mills:
Thanks! Do you have any idea whether __le_traceback will produce meaningful
results in a situation in which CEE3DMP does not output a useful traceback?
The C++ stack has apparently already been unwound when C++ enters a catch()
block. The catch()
W dniu 2015-01-22 o 19:38, John Norgauer pisze:
Any installation out there running CICS 3.2 under z/os 2.1?
Just curious: why to install old unsupported CICS under new shining z/OS?
While I understand reasons to keep old software set unchanged I don't
see rationale to have such unsupported
As supplied by IBM, the IEESYSAS
proc does not contain a DD statement for any of those DDnames.
We have not modified the IEESYSAS procedure. There is none of the
dump DD statements in there.
I just examined the code, and verified with a testcase,
and it turns out that the IEA848I
I just looked at the description of __le_traceback().
It looks as if it can be called with the DSA from the CIB;
this way, it should give you all the information you need, IMO.
In the calling example we have:
tbck_parms.__tf_dsa_addr = 0;
|
this should be changed for our situation, I think.
Works, but unsupported. ;-)
Christian
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] Im Auftrag
von John Norgauer
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2015 19:38
An: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Betreff: CICS 3.2 under z/OS 2.1?
Any installation
I am catching a bad_alloc exception in a catch() block. I call CEE3DMP but
the stack has been unwound and there is no useful traceback information. So
I know a new failed, but I have no clue which one. (Well, actually, I do
know, but let's assume this were an unexpected error occurring at a
In 5801267398511437.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
01/21/2015
at 08:36 AM, Paul Gilmartin
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu said:
Has PL/I no operators which modify their operands?
Functioms with side effects and constructs that don't return values.
--
Shmuel
In 54bfbe41.1030...@t-online.de, on 01/21/2015
at 03:57 PM, Bernd Oppolzer bernd.oppol...@t-online.de said:
but in C, there are bit operators, too,
PL/I has always had bit operators; what is new is shortcut operators.
Readability and maintainability (does that word exist?)
Not in a lot of
The C header has all that.
cib_machine from the __cib structure is the pointer to the machine block.
__mch has the psw, regs and bear at the time of abend. This all assumes
you are running TRAP(ON).
In article 54c1508e.3050...@t-online.de you wrote:
Hello Charles,
I hope that I am not
More to the point, PL/I pseudovariables, which appear on the target
side of assignment statements, modify their arguments. This
modification is indeed their raison d'être.
Thus, for example,
substr(target,3,4) = substr(source,5,4) ;
replaces the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th characters of source with
Forum motto:
*Fist clenched and breathing heavily through an armoured black mask*
Microsoft, I am your father!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Shane Ginnane
Sent: Friday, 23 January 2015 5:11 PM
To:
Charles Mills wrote:
At least some System SSL functions are protected by RACF classes --
True, but it depends, for example usage of FACILITY Class profiles like
IRR.DIGTCERT.whatever.
In order for System SSL to use cryptographic support provided through ICSF,
the ICSF started task must be
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:44:05 -0500, Don Poitras wrote:
Sure, you can ask how. There's no guarantee you'll like the answer. :)
Thanks Don, ROTFLMAO
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
This guy Peter certainly makes a convincing argument for 64 bit data storage
addressing. Good info from the field and pretty hard for anyone in IBM to
know about. Maybe Peter's points will be taken into consideration. Seems like
it would behoove IBM to spend some to keep their mainframe
61 matches
Mail list logo
