Storage overlays for multi-threaded servers such as CICS and IMS do exist but
are far less than UNIX threading. CICS allows the use of key 9 and programs are
usually conversational (vaguely remember that most storage is free while
waiting for a terminal response). IMS runs code in dependent
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
John,
Are you speaking of Sub Address Space storage ?
I've never heard of Sub Address Space storage. I can't figure out what
you mean. What I meant was storage which is in a subpool, such as 130,
which is automatically
On Wed, 14 May 2014 06:50:09 -0500, John McKown wrote:
I've never heard of Sub Address Space storage. I can't figure out what
you mean.
Try subspace group.
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Shane Ginnane ibm-m...@tpg.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 06:50:09 -0500, John McKown wrote:
I've never heard of Sub Address Space storage. I can't figure out what
you mean.
Try subspace group.
I have some minimal knowledge of that, thanks to CICS
From the MVS extended Addressability Manual …SA22-7618-08
A subspace is a specific range of storage in the private area of an address
space, designed to limit the storage a program can reference.
A program that is associated with a subspace cannot reference some of the
private area storage
Subspace groups are not secure. A program can freely reset their subspace
group.
If you play nicely, the subspace groups help.
On Wed, 14 May 2014 08:09:02 -0500 John McKown john.archie.mck...@gmail.com
wrote:
:On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Shane Ginnane ibm-m...@tpg.com.au wrote:
:
: On
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com
wrote:
Subspace groups are not secure. A program can freely reset their subspace
group.
Another wonderful idea shot down by cruel reality.
If you play nicely, the subspace groups help.
Just blue skying, but I
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Jon Perryman jperr...@pacbell.net wrote:
In assembler, we usually do this by allocating the storage to a shared
subpool or allocating the storage to a TCB that we know is the last TCB to
terminate. This allows assembler programmers to choose the time that the
John,
Are you speaking of Sub Address Space storage ?
Regards,
Scott
From: john.archie.mck...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:33 AM
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Jon Perryman jperr...@pacbell.net wrote:
In assembler, we
Having the job step TCB own the storage is the best default for shared storage
but it is not always correct. As I said before, shared storage really means
when do I free the storage if not specifically freed.
Lets use UNIX processes as an example. It is the UNIX equivalent of an MVS job
but
Some comments.
The terms 'local' and 'global' have well-established definitions and
uses---They specify the scopes of set symbols at assembly time---in
the HLASM macro language, and their usurpation for other purposes is
ill-advised. '...that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of
John,
So what you call setting a token, IEANTCR ..then allocating storage based on
the return address ? A block of storage ? Curious ...
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
On May 13, 2014, at 1:32 PM, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:
Some comments.
The terms 'local'
The distinction between COBOL's distinction of WORKING-STORAGE and
LOCAL-STORAGE is essentially the same as the PL/I and then C
distinction of static and automatic storage.
As far as I can judge from earlier posts in this thread the shared
facility is not a dynamic shared control block; it is a
In assembler, we usually do this by allocating the storage to a shared subpool
or allocating the storage to a TCB that we know is the last TCB to terminate.
This allows assembler programmers to choose the time that the storage will be
automatically freed if recovery / termination occurs for our
All:
I am not trying to pour cold water on any ideas or dis-credit anyone, that's
not me . I have a weird kinda legacy issue I am trying to solve.
Basically, COBOL STC calling Assembler subroutines. The STC(s), are single
threaded or single TCB and the real issue is we need them to run
Scott,
Is this message table in fact a static one than you change only
infrequently, e.g., when you also make changes in the routines that
use it?
If so, you should consider making it into a load module or,
preferably, a program object.
It can then be brought into storage using a LOAD or LOADX.
John,
Yes sir it is static …I like the idea of a load module ..easier for sure..and I
can protect it..
A big thanks..
Hey do you know if a Heap can be passed in a C thread ?
Regards,
Scott
From: John Gilmore
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 11:26 AM
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion
I have written a C program using threads and have a question. I have an ext=
ernal message table that I need to be persistent between threads. The mess=
age table is loaded from an external QSAM file. Program in Cobol loads the =
table. I want to be able to use the message table in other threads.
Tom,
Thank you very much, I appreciate the clarification, I thought this was how
threading worked with Cobol but wanted to make sure.
Regards,
Scott
From: Tom Ross
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 2:02 AM
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
I have written a C program using
Tom,
Looking here:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/igy3pg31/4.4
quote
For the data that you want to isolate to an individual program invocation
instance, define the data in the LOCAL-STORAGE SECTION. In general, this
choice is appropriate for working data in threaded
I personally would STRONGLY discourage this implementation. You're not the only
one in your environment.
Why not do it correctly and allocate from shared storage pool. Use either C's
or assemblers implementation. Remember if you do it once, someone else will
think this clever and use it
John,
As always my friend excellent points.
I have a follow on question can you pass a created user heap from thread to
thread ??
Regards,
Scott
From: John McKown
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 10:04 AM
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Tom,
Looking here:
The distinction between COBOL's distinction of WORKING-STORAGE and
LOCAL-STORAGE is essentially the same as the PL/I and then C
distinction of static and automatic storage.
As far as I can judge from earlier posts in this thread the shared
facility is not a dynamic shared control block; it is a
Jon,
Its not my call ….I am only the guy asking the questions.
From: Jon Perryman
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 10:05 AM
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
I personally would STRONGLY discourage this implementation. You're not the only
one in your environment.
Why not
Jon,
Can you point me to the shared memory you spoke of in C …I would prefer to
write this in C / Assembler…get away from
Cobol, not that I don't like it. We are a small vendor ….
It would be much appreciated
From: John McKown
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 10:04 AM
To: IBM
All:
I have written a C program using threads and have a question. I have an
external message table that I need to be persistent between threads. The
message table is loaded from an external QSAM file. Program in Cobol loads the
table. I want to be able to use the message table in other
26 matches
Mail list logo
