No. RENT implies REUS. Meanwhile RENT *may* be modified IFF an ENQ is
first issued on the code to be modified, provided that code is then
restored to what it was before it was ENQ'd and then DEQ'd. Only REFR
prohibits any code modification (because REFR means that an LMOD can be
swapped out and
RENT implies REUS; REUS does not imply RENT.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Joseph Reichman [reichman...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:53
I opened a dcb load library with the same load mod name as the first
Did an attach DCB= TASKLIB=
Didn’t pick it up from there as the module from the first load lib with same
name was linked REUS
> On Feb 5, 2021, at 3:48 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
> RENT implies REUS..
>
>
> --
>
Dear Folks,
We have just made a development to help isolate a csect from a
load module. The tool which can help, is the latest version of the PDS
8.6 product from the Updates page of www.cbttape.org.
The latest version of the PDS 8.6 program from CBT File 182 (see
the Updates page
RENT implies REUS..
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Joseph Reichman [reichman...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:02 PM
To:
Sorry to jump in here but can you have rent without reus
> On Feb 5, 2021, at 2:59 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
> If the module is not REUS then every LOAD will get a different copy. If the
> module is REUS but not RENT then LOAD, ENQ, CALL, DEQ, DELETE is safe. Using
> LOAD, SYNCH, DELETE
OK, now I get it. That sequence would indeed almost exactly emulate LINK.
And therefore, there's probably no reason to do it; but who knows.
I didn't say that RBs were esoteric, only that the need to create one with
SYNCH is. I think the typical case is for some authorized code to run a
user
If the module is not REUS then every LOAD will get a different copy. If the
module is REUS but not RENT then LOAD, ENQ, CALL, DEQ, DELETE is safe. Using
LOAD, SYNCH, DELETE is left as an excise for the reader. In most cases I would
use LINK(X).
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
On 2/5/2021 11:06 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
SYNCH could replace CALL, but the reasons for doing so are pretty esoteric,
and 99.99% of application programmers never have, and never need hear about
it (I realize the grammar is off, but I liked it this way... sorry).
My point is that LINK replaces
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 1:28 PM Ed Jaffe wrote:
> On 2/5/2021 10:04 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> > LINK is one step, rather than LOAD/CALL/DELETE.
>
>
> I would say LINK takes the place of SYNCH/LOAD/CALL/DELETE.
>
>
> Why? That sequence that makes no sense.
SYNCH could replace CALL, but the
Barry Lichtenstein wrote:
The binder will simply discard the "private code" (unnamed) CSECT (section), if
it has text.
It never gets incorporated into the module being bound, so it should have no
effect on it.
Binder has behaved like this since near the beginning (early 90's, around when
PM3
I would like to add:
while LINK is functionally the same as LOAD - CALL - DELETE,
there is an important difference:
the transfer of control with LINK is known to the operating system,
but with LOAD - CALL - DELETE, it is NOT known.
In fact, CALL is not a supervisor action, it is simple machine
On 2/5/2021 10:04 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
LINK is one step, rather than LOAD/CALL/DELETE.
I would say LINK takes the place of SYNCH/LOAD/CALL/DELETE.
--
Phoenix Software International
Edward E. Jaffe
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
Thank you!
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Steve Smith
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 11:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LINK vs LOAD/CALL
LINK is one step, rather than LOAD/CALL/DELETE. LINK will honor the target
module's
LINK is one step, rather than LOAD/CALL/DELETE. LINK will honor the target
module's reusability attributes. It is more overhead for a frequently
invoked program. Technically, LINK creates a new PRB, which is sometimes,
if rarely, required. You would probably find out the first time if the
LOAD and CALL keeps the module you loaded resident in memory until and unless
you manually delete it. LINK can (not always) load a new copy every time you
use the LINK, which can be expensive. In time used.
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf
I am not a systems programmer. I am a COBOL programmer who knows only enough
assembler to be dangerous.
What is the "difference" between doing a LOAD and a CALL to perform a dynamic
call and doing a LINK?
--
For IBM-MAIN
I've been playing around with COBOL and the Unix callable services. Kinda
cool! Glad they are not limited to assembler.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
David Crayford
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 12:24 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
That depends on what you mean by recent.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin [000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Thursday,
Dave says no; he had to do deconstructive maintenance after failures.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
PINION, RICHARD W. [rpin...@firsthorizon.com]
Would bitsavers host it if you scanned it?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Jerry Whitteridge [jerry.whitteri...@albertsons.com]
Sent: Thursday, February
There was also an ISV TCP/IP implementation from Interlink. I recall at the
time modifying Lionel's excellent XMITIP to use Interlink TCP.
Dana
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 23:46:40 +, Frank Swarbrick
wrote:
>Looks like OS/390 V2R4 (Sept 1997?) contained "A new TCP/IP stack, for
>applications
> So I guess I need to use Rexx, or some other language? SORT doesn't
> do variable length output fields?
Dave,
You don't have to use REXX as DFSORT is quite capable of handling variable
string. Use the function JFY (justifies string to left/right) or SQZ
(removes spaces in between and
Hi Shmuel,
I've check it out. Unfortunately, explicit partitions are not supported.
If you're interested to give it a try anyway, please let me know and I'll send
you a copy. If you'll be the only one using it, you can use it for free.
Regards,
Michael
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von:
24 matches
Mail list logo
