On 3/17/2021 7:24 PM, Jim Mulder wrote:
Several years ago I was helping the COD folks with some
problem with using the Operating System Messages console when
IPLing standalone ICKDSF from DVD. I needed a DVD so I could
reproduce the problem on a test machine, and asked how to create one.
Yes, building on this idea... the content can all be migrated into GitHub.
Initial migration will be painful but then new versions can be managed via
'releases'.
Without the recent release of https://github.com/mainframed/xmission, it's not
a simple process browsing XMIT files on a desktop.
-
Several years ago I was helping the COD folks with some
problem with using the Operating System Messages console when
IPLing standalone ICKDSF from DVD. I needed a DVD so I could
reproduce the problem on a test machine, and asked how to create one.
They told me that they have some tool or
The internal disk drives for a multiprise 3000 are SSA.
https://www.cnet.com/products/ibm-ultrastar-18zx-hard-drive-18-2-gb-ssa/
Joe
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:22 PM A T & T Management
wrote:
>
> Just wondering, but has anyone tried attaching IDE disk Drives to the MP
> 3000? If so how well
Likely that documentation is not taking in to consideration more recent
standards.
My source INCITS/ISO/IEC 1989:2014 [2014], the 2014 COBOL standard. It's only
available for purchase, but I'll try to put some of it here.
13.10 Constant entry
A constant entry defines a constant. A constant
Scott,
Sounds interesting, but also sounds like not working... :)
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 10:21 PM, A T & T Management
wrote:
Just wondering, but has anyone tried attaching IDE disk Drives to the MP
3000? If so how well did it work?
Scott
On
Just wondering, but has anyone tried attaching IDE disk Drives to the MP
3000? If so how well did it work?
Scott
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 1:44:22 PM EDT, Tom Conley
wrote:
On 3/17/2021 12:38 PM, W Mainframe wrote:
> Thanks Joe...I will check these steps...
>
>
> Sent from
Only 1 or 2 banks still use mainframes in 2009? The truth is, all but 1 or 2
banks worldwide don’t use a mainframe in 2021.
I’ve worked at 15 different shops in 40 years and only 1 used visual basic and
that was over 20 years ago. It was declared legacy in 2008.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for
Yep. I'm sure I've said it here before, but during a contract in Ohio I was at
a covered-dish supper for the church I went to there, and sat with a friend.
His nephew, visiting from California sat with us. The nephew, it developed,
was majoring in computer design, so I trolled before him the
If I have understood your code (and I am not a COBOL programmer) then the
machine code is loaded into a data area and executed from there. I think the
latest z machine offer non-executable storage. If COBOL makes use of this,
or is ever changed to make use of this, then I think your code will
Frank,
Do you have a source?
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS6SG3_6.1.0/pg/tasks/tpbeg04d.html
A constant is a data item that has only one value. COBOL does not define a
construct for constants. However, you can define a data item with an
initial value by coding a VALUE clause in
Can you just use the new FUNCTION UUID4?
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Farley, Peter x23353 <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: This
The COBOL CURRENT-DATE value is only accurate to hundredth of a second, far too
coarse for generating unique values in multi-LPAR systems where many, many
millions of records are processed all day long, each possibly needing a unique
value (or sometimes multiple unique values) for various
Why would you do this instead of using the intrinsic function
CURRENT-DATE from COBOL?
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_6.3.0/lr/ref/rlinfcur.html
Joe
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:50 AM Farley, Peter x23353 <
031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> I
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:47:58 +1100, Attila Fogarasi wrote:
>It is documented in Pops under the SCKPF instruction (which is where I
>would expect). For z/OS it is unique sysplex-wide (i.e. in the scope where
>zos can co-ordinate setting the prefix value). Sole purpose is to resolve
>timestamp
PoOP only says this under SCKPF:
Programming Note: The values in the TOD programmable
registers of a configuration should be the
same and should be unique within a multiple-configuration
system.
It says nothing about what value z/OS puts into the field, only that t "should
be unique" (only
It is documented in Pops under the SCKPF instruction (which is where I
would expect). For z/OS it is unique sysplex-wide (i.e. in the scope where
zos can co-ordinate setting the prefix value). Sole purpose is to resolve
timestamp collisions.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 2:19 AM Farley, Peter x23353
The current COBOL standard supports constants. Not a CONSTANTS-SECTION but
something like:
01 my-constant IS CONSTANT VALUE "This is a constant string".
I may have the syntax not quite correct, but don't feel like looking it up.
IBM has not yet implemented this support in Enterprise COBOL.
Yeah, I've seen that one too, but that could also happen to any dynamically
called subroutine loaded in non-store-protected memory if the table index
overrun is big enough (BTDTGTTS and the scars).
I wouldn't contemplate embedding such "clever" code in a "normal" application
program for the
** ASMA224E No control section defined, external reference with GOFF option
ignored - ###0021
Does the error say 021 or 0022? If it's 0022 then it looks like
you're missing a CSECT.
Thank you,
Brian Chapman
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 3:49 PM Dave Jones wrote:
> Hi, all.
> I am
It would be nice if COBOL had constant constructs. Knowing my shop's COBOL
developers, I could easily see one of them placing a table above this,
programmatically ignoring the COBOL OCCURS statement, and overrunning the
table and into your VALUE statements.
Thank you,
Brian Chapman
On Wed,
Hi, all.
I am now working with John McKown's port of SQLITE3 to z/OS Unix Systems
services. However when I attempt to compile the SQLITE3A member with HLASM 1.6,
I get errors that state:
581 **OLDMKFUNC sqlite3_backup_
What about skipping the tape grouping entirely, and have a separate web
page for each file # with the README (or whatever is supplied as doc) on
that web page so it's searchable by Google? Then there's no need for
the update page either, since the latest updates will be on the
individual file
PoOP (-12 edition) states on page 4-47:
For certain instructions, the TOD clock is considered
to be extended to the left by an 8-bit epoch index. In
a multiprocessing configuration, a single epoch index
is shared by all CPUs. When the multiple-epoch facility
is not installed in the configuration,
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:53:36 -0400, Brian Chapman wrote:
>I may need wrong, but I seem to remember reading that the 12 bit lower
>order value had some relation to the processor ID. This ensured the STCK
>value would be unique across the sysplex.
>
The patent is no help:
I may need wrong, but I seem to remember reading that the 12 bit lower
order value had some relation to the processor ID. This ensured the STCK
value would be unique across the sysplex.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:55 PM Farley, Peter x23353 <
031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:55:12 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
>But is it documented anywhere? PoOP is silent on the value of the field.
>
I had the belief that it comes from PARMLIB. But I can't find it in CLOCKxx.
RCF?
Uniqueness and the 16-bit field impose a limit of 64 KiLPARs.
Hi Sam,
IMHO fewer is better. One or two a year for the consolidators who like to take
the whole contents in one fell swoop for offline searching. I am sure there
are folk who do that, I'm just not one of them.
My own "normal" usage pattern is far more targeted. When I need to find
Hello Sam! Your name caught my eye on this list.
I say, fewer tape version updates. No more than 4 per year.
Just my 2 cents.
Steve Gorham
SSA / OSOHE / DMSS / MSB
(virtually at Perimeter East Building, 5C6J)
steve.gor...@ssa.gov
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion
Exactly
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 1:17 PM, Mike Wawiorko
<014ab5cdfb21-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
Same stories go round every 10 years or so.
In mid-1980s Unix was going to wipe out mainframes within 5-10 years.
Now Linux threatens
The code looks fine, even if invoked in 64 bit mode. I'd worry a bit more about
the cache hit, the STCK is likely storing into the same cache line.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On
> Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:06 AM
>
"Better" only in the sense that it doesn’t require a future maintainer to
"know" assembler, since it is all laid out in the COBOL source.
"Worse" in that it is a "clever hack" that may still make the non-assembler
future maintainer scratch their proverbial head figuring out why it works.
Peter
Dear Folks,
I have a dilemma. The dilemma is: How often should I make new CBT
Tape Versions?
We make about 2 or 3 CBT Tape Version updates per year, and we have
been doing that for the past 16 or 17 years now. This is in contrast to
when Arnie was doing the CBT Tape. Arnie
Yes, making it a simple callable assembler routine is the safest option, but
introduces yet another assembler routine into the production source pool when
there are fewer and fewer assembler-knowledgeable programmers left.
If COBOL supported the "hardware builtin" functions provided with XLC it
The actual CALL statement if the structure of the PROCEDURE-POINTER changes
(e.g., for 64-bit mode).
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: This
But is it documented anywhere? PoOP is silent on the value of the field.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Salva Carrasco
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Contents of TOD Programmable Field under
On 3/17/2021 12:38 PM, W Mainframe wrote:
Thanks Joe...I will check these steps...
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 12:59 PM, Joe Monk wrote:
https://www.mail-archive.com/ibm-main@listserv.ua.edu/msg89735.html
Joe
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:53 AM W Mainframe <
Peter,
This is interesting, but how is this better than just link-editing the
assembler program into the COBOL program?
Thank you,
Brian Chapman
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:50 AM Farley, Peter x23353 <
031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> I discovered that one can code
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 06:25:44 -0500, Willy Jensen wrote:
>... For GETNEXT however you must start again from the top as a a specific
> GET will destroy the information that REXX stored for GETNEXT. At least that
> is how I read the documentation, and experimentation seems to prove it.
>
I recall doing something like this about 30 years ago which I know would break
one day. I wanted to process VB ISAM but that wasn’t supported so I figured
out a way to search backwards from WS with negative indexes until I found the
DCB for the file and “moved a byte” with the right bit on for
It only uses R15, the entry address.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:18 PM Joe Monk wrote:
>
> How is this supposed to work without saving/restoring registers?
>
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 12:07 Charles Mills wrote:
>
> > That is some impressive hacking!
> >
> > Something about it seems
How is this supposed to work without saving/restoring registers?
Joe
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 12:07 Charles Mills wrote:
> That is some impressive hacking!
>
> Something about it seems inherently risky as you know, but hard to see how
> it stops working. Which particular line of code might not be
Same stories go round every 10 years or so.
In mid-1980s Unix was going to wipe out mainframes within 5-10 years.
Now Linux threatens Unix...
and for large shops mainframe thrives.
Mike Wawiorko
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Bill Johnson
Sent:
That is some impressive hacking!
Something about it seems inherently risky as you know, but hard to see how
it stops working. Which particular line of code might not be supported in
the future?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Afaik unique to the LPAR & Sysplex.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Thanks Joe...I will check these steps...
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 12:59 PM, Joe Monk wrote:
https://www.mail-archive.com/ibm-main@listserv.ua.edu/msg89735.html
Joe
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:53 AM W Mainframe <
No, they become niche products. Another one was Powerbuilder. SAP was hot in
the 90’s too. Oracle was going to replace DB2. It didn’t. I remember the guy
who claimed the mainframe was going to be gone by 2000. He was wrong too.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021,
I forgot to ask in my last post: Bill, are you laboring under the impression
that Visual Basic was a flash in the pan and then died away? That's not what I
observe.
---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
/* If you don't like my bumper stickers, vote liberal and have them
Some years ago my son got an idea he'd like to learn mainframe, so I started
asking around, trying to find out how much it would cost me to rent space for
two IDs on an MVS system somewhere so I could coach him. I don't recall that I
was shaking the earth in my attempts, but the questions must
https://www.mail-archive.com/ibm-main@listserv.ua.edu/msg89735.html
Joe
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:53 AM W Mainframe <
01304632a58d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Guys,Recently I bought a Multiprise 3000. It is an old dream to fill my
> hardware shelf... :) The OS/2 is ok... The
I discovered that one can code and call extremely simple assembler code from
completely within a COBOL source program, but it is a two-step process which I
will describe below.
My question is whether using a technique like this is "risky" in the sense that
it may someday, under a future
I have recently seen a comment in a prior co-worker's assembler code which used
STCKE to retrieve the TOD "Programmable Field" contents:
"The Field contains a value, assigned by z/OS, which uniquely identifies a
current LPAR in the SYSPLEX of machines."
Is this a true statement, and if so is
I am already allocating a large initial buffer. The issue is with my general
routines like the CBT program REXXGBLV, where since they are in the public
domain, I have no idea of nor control over how they will be used.
I have a couple of methods for handling the issue, but a direct read access,
This sounds like a debugging routine.
It would seem logical to process all the variables with you default buffer
size and then individually get the ones that were truncated.
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 06:25:44 -0500 Willy Jensen
wrote:
:>The reason is that IRXEXCOM GET does a MOVE, meaning that you
I have been looking around the IBM Enterprise COBOL manuals and websites
including the Enterprise COBOL PTF summary page, but I haven't seen this kind
of function available or even proposed.
IBM XLC has intrinsic "builtin" functions to invoke a large range of Z hardware
instructions like TR
On Mar 17, 2021, at 9:00 AM, Pommier, Rex wrote:
>
> I can't speak to javascript or Ruby but I believe Python is available.
Python is available, and so is node.js, which is server-side JavaScript.
--
Pew, Curtis G
curtis@austin.utexas.edu
No sysplex. A couple stand-alone LPARs on the box.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Carmen Vitullo
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] Re: z14 HMC log information
so the only other thing I can
Gil,
I can't speak to javascript or Ruby but I believe Python is available. I
haven't looked into it but a notification came across IBM-Main recently
announcing a Python SDK. Here's the text of the message:
IBM Open Enterprise SDK for Python 3.9 was generally available on Jan 15th,
2020.
I have not looked at IRXEXCOM in years but in these days of relatively abundant
storage can't you have a buffer big enough for the largest variable you expect?
If the Rexx variables are really larger than -- say, 256K -- then perhaps
redesign the Rexx?
Charles
-Original Message-
Guys,Recently I bought a Multiprise 3000. It is an old dream to fill my
hardware shelf... :) The OS/2 is ok... The Software Element is ok... I can
perform lot of SE tasks. I can IPL a z/os 1.1 in emulated disks. But I can't
use the array! :(I verified this fail in my array. My SD20 was showing
Please do share when you find out!
I wonder if an LPAR with full BCPii authority over the box can silently
query/log information from the HMC for monitoring, i.e., actions occuring not
via BCPii itself, but just accessing HMC logs.
- KB
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, March 17,
so the only other thing I can think of is if you are in a sysplex and your SFM
policy took the system out of the plex, XCF may have not seen a heartbeat in a
long enough time it partitioned the system from the plex, I've had this happen
before, you should see some IXC messages if this happened.
Alas no, but there's a number of products out there that will read said
records, including our own. ;) Pivotor does have a free tier, but it's not open
source.
Scott Chapman
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
The reason is that IRXEXCOM GET does a MOVE, meaning that you must already have
a buffer big enough to hold the data. For a normal GET you can just redo the
request with a bigger buffer and IRXEXCOM will tell you how big it needs to be.
For GETNEXT however you must start again from the top as a
Admitted the discussion has moved on. However, the suggested solution with MVS
3.8 is not much good for learning 64-bit programming!
Regards
Parwez Hamid
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
PINION, RICHARD W.
Sent: 16 March 2021 17:09
To:
Yes, PDSE was mentioned, but the FORCE SYSTEM DETERMINED BLOCKSIZE affects more
than PDSE.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin
As there is IRXEXCOM, what more do you need?
Do you have an unusual environment, such as XMEM? From a different task?
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 05:14:59 -0500 Willy Jensen
wrote:
:>Some time ago I read something somewhere that indicated that there is a way
to read REXX variables directly by an
Yes, z/OS on z is attractive for a medium or large customer, but it is priced
out of the market for a hobbyist or a "Mom and Pop" business. The entry cost is
much lower for, e.g., openSUSE on a PC. I miss the days of 80% discounts for
Academia.
Of course, if you need high I/O bandwidth or RAS,
Thanks to everyone who responded. In summary, I have passed the following links
along to the student:
https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/education
https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/education/master-the-mainframe
https://www.coursera.org/professional-certificates/ibm-z-mainframe?
69 matches
Mail list logo
