Sent from my MetroPCS 4G Android deviceCharles Mills charl...@mcn.org
wrote:I have looked in the manuals but I can't find this. Is there anywhere any
documentation mapping the relationship between z/OS events as we have known
and loved them for years, and C signals?
I have figured out that
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?
Hey Charles,
I assume you have been here
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ib
m.zos.r12.cbcpx01%2Ferrhndl.htm
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:06 AM
that
they say S0C1 = SIGILL, Operator CANCEL =
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Scott Ford
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 7:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS
: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
I mean, gee, SIGILL is documented as Invalid object module (hardware
and software).
I didn't know that! SIGKILL
, 2012 9:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?
On 13 July 2012 12:10, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
I mean, gee, SIGILL is documented as Invalid object module (hardware
I stand corrected about SIGKILL vs. SIGILL.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:45:00 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
BTW, this is z/OS batch (STC actually). Does operator CANCEL generate a
SIGKILL? Or ...?
I once suggested that for compatibility with existing UNIX conventions
z/OS system shutdown should send
If you are a partner with IBM you could go to a development group and ask
for clarification, I think. I though IBM had development forums for these
kinds of questions.
Lizette
I sure don't see any mapping whatsoever of C library/UNIX signals to or
from
traditional z/OS terminology: S0C1,
and the LE books does
not help.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Steve Comstock
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:26 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?
On 7/13/2012 9
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
I mean, gee, SIGILL is documented as Invalid object module (hardware
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:51 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?
On 7/13/2012 11:42 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
I sure don't see any mapping whatsoever of C library/UNIX signals to
or from traditional z/OS terminology: S0C1, CANCEL, etc
In
CAArMM9TAObiJu1BvHCumRYfGXvyo+=ccm-_4tzcd0itldx6...@mail.gmail.com,
on 07/13/2012
at 12:43 PM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net said:
FORCE is most certainly not just a stronger form of CANCEL
He may be thinking of FORCE ARM.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:45:00 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
. . .
Yeah, in a perfect world there would be no bugs. But I had a bug in the field
(the first in 18 months!) that resulted in a loop, a CANCEL, and a modest mess
in CSA.
Yes, I will fix the root cause bug. Yes, I
12 matches
Mail list logo
