Re: Why would LE not trap?

27, 2017 3:29 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: AW: Re: Why would LE not trap? >> isn't there a third place where LE options come from? > >Yes, absolutely, there are installation defaults. Several sets: CICS, POSIX, I have forgotten what all. I guess that is part of my q

Re: Why would LE not trap?

And to close the loop: Why would LE not trap? Because it's AMODE 31 LE and the S0C4 happened in AMODE 64. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 4:08 PM To:

AW: Re: Why would LE not trap?

>> isn't there a third place where LE options come from? > >Yes, absolutely, there are installation defaults. Several sets: CICS, POSIX, I >have forgotten what all. I guess that is part of my question here: aren't they >defaults? Is there any way installation "stuff" of some sort overrides

Re: Why would LE not trap?

that we allocated. :> :>Charles :> :> :>-Original Message- :>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On :>Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen :>Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 4:43 PM :>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU :>Subject: Re: Why would L

Re: Why would LE not trap?

t: Sunday, August 27, 2017 1:42 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Why would LE not trap? AMODE ESTAE-type recovery exits receive control in the AMODE that was current at the time-of-set (time-of-PC AMODE for ARRs) with the following exceptions: ?ARR, IEAARR, and ESTAEX exits receive control

Re: Why would LE not trap?

...@t-online.de Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2017 1:34 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: AW: Re: Why would LE not trap? is it possible to Set the Amode to 31 in the estae Routine? the estae Routine should be able to detect that the Problem occured while executing in Amode 64

Re: Why would LE not trap?

Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie NY > From: Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 08/27/2017 01:38 PM > Subject: Re: Why would LE not trap? > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> >

AW: Re: Why would LE not trap?

.de/service/redir/email_app_android_sendmail_footer.htm> --- Original-Nachricht --- Von: Charles Mills Betreff: Re: Why would LE not trap? Datum: 27.08.2017, 18:59 Uhr An: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Well, I now know a little more and am a little mystified. I had this sudden thought that p

Re: Why would LE not trap?

Well, I now know a little more and am a little mystified. I had this sudden thought that perhaps the difference at the one customer was that the two S0C4's we have experienced there would have happened in assembler code running AMODE 64. (The C++ code is all AMODE 31.) So today I coded up some

Re: Why would LE not trap?

26, 2017 4:43 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Why would LE not trap? The trace table in the SYSUDUMP should show if the ESTAE(x) got control. But why do you want your ESTAE to do when the abend is unrecoverable (such as CANCEL/DETACH)? Some failures will not go thru an ESTAE at

Re: Why would LE not trap?

urting us. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 5:42 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Why would LE not trap? https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecen

Re: Why would LE not trap?

rides #pragma? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 5:26 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Why would LE not trap? Am 25.08.2017 um 22:08 schrieb Charles Mills:

Re: Why would LE not trap?

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ceeam00/spetro.htm Interesting: For C++ applications, the following values are not allowed for compilation: * NOEXECOPS | EXECOPS * NOREDIR | REDIR * NOARGPARSE | ARGPARSE if NOEXECOPS is not allowed on #pragma

Re: Why would LE not trap?

Am 25.08.2017 um 22:08 schrieb Charles Mills: I have a C++ program compiled with #pragma runopts( POSIX(ON),TRAP(ON,NOSPIE),NOEXECOPS ) I have my own ESTAEX. On an ABEND, if SDWACLUP is not set, I percolate, presumably to LE's ESTAE and it drives my C Signal catcher. It works. In testing, and

Re: Why would LE not trap?

Thanks. No COBOL in this picture. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 1:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: AW: Why would LE not trap? >What should I be

Re: Why would LE not trap?

Am 26.08.2017 um 19:31 schrieb Peter Hunkeler: Note that we're a COBOL shop, and COBOL allows operations that loose significant digits in numbers. This causes troubles when the decimal overflow program mask is set, which it is if C code is also part of the application (implicit or explicit).

Re: Why would LE not trap?

The trace table in the SYSUDUMP should show if the ESTAE(x) got control. But why do you want your ESTAE to do when the abend is unrecoverable (such as CANCEL/DETACH)? Some failures will not go thru an ESTAE at all. On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:08:09 -0400 Charles Mills wrote: :>I