Possibly. LE library routines may be smart enough to do that. But the compiler
can’t do that in the case you compiled on a z14 to run on any lower level
supported architecture.
Sent from my iPhone — small keyboarf, fat fungrs, stupd spell manglr. Expct
mistaks
> On May 3, 2019, at 3:57 PM,
This article from IBM agrees with your thoughts and everything else I've
read. I can't find anything that confirms the vendor's statement.
https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca=an=897=ENUS217-323
On Fri, May 3, 2019, 5:20 PM Feller, Paul
wrote:
> It is my understanding
On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:57:34 -0400, Brian Chapman wrote:
>We have a vendor debugging product that is constantly causing 0C1 and 0C4
>abends since we have upgraded to COBOL 6.2. It also caused these abends
>when we were at COBOL 4,2, but the abend rate has grown considerably after
>the upgrade.
>
Is the abend in the user compiled instructions? Then check the
compiler processor settings.
Is the abend in the vendor compiled libraries or included subroutines?
Then check the vendor's subroutine / runtime libraries.
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:52 PM Charles Mills wrote:
>
> I think I
"the big diversion"?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
On 5/3/19 2:13 PM, Don Poitras wrote:
Well, no one told me till today. :)
Better late than never?
Seriously, what's wrong with scp?
10 hack
20 kludge
30 goto 10
My understanding is that scp uses a terminal connection between scp on
one end talking to scp as a remote command on the other
I think I disagree.
You compile the program for ARCH(8). IBM guarantees that it will run on a z10
(do I have that right?). They do NOT guarantee that the program plus LE will
behave on a z114 exactly as though it were running on a z10.
No matter what ARCH the program were compiled for, I would
It is my understanding that if you set the ARCH level to something lower than
the machine type you are running on it should not use any of the new machine
instructions. If what the vendor says is truly what is happening then I would
think a question to IBM would be in order.
Thanks..
Paul
SmartTest giving you problems?
Missing me?
Most of the technical guys are gone. I think the only guy left is Ken someone
or other. If it's Frank A. You're f'd.
If you got a name let me know.
Tom Spina
On May 3, 2019, at 3:57 PM, Brian Chapman wrote:
We have a vendor debugging product
We were early users of Smart Scheduler. It was a nice product and George Elliot
was a whiz. He enhanced my knowledge several times on Ibm-main. Died of a
massive coronary at age 38. We kept it thru the turmoil until the big
diversion.
In a message dated 5/3/2019 3:33:51 PM Central Standard
On 2019-05-03 12:15 PM, David Spiegel wrote:
Steve said: "... but the received wisdom is that all load libraries should
have blksize=32K-8. ..."
For optimal space usage, however, the BLKSIZE should be 27998 (i.e. half-track
blocking).
You might think that, but for load modules, you have to
Hi Greg,
If someone uses BLKSIZE=32760, isn't it true that only one physical
block fits on a (emulated) 3390 track, thereby definitely wasting
(2*27998)-32760=23236 bytes per track (regardless of any Program Binder
considerations)?
Thanks and regards,
David
On 2019-05-03 03:41, Greg Price
No. See my previous reply to an earlier email in this thread.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
David Spiegel
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 5:08 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Crazy concatenation mystery
Hi Greg,
If someone uses
I'm not sure that was ever true for the LE, although it took IEBCOPY a while
to catch up.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
David Spiegel
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 6:08 AM
To:
You said: "... but the received wisdom is that all load libraries should have
blksize=32K-8. ..."
For optimal space usage, however, the BLKSIZE should be 27998 (i.e. half-track
blocking).
On Behalf Of
David Spiegel
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 9:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject:
On Fri, 3 May 2019 10:08:02 +, David Spiegel wrote:
>Hi Greg,
>If someone uses BLKSIZE=32760, isn't it true that only one physical
>block fits on a (emulated) 3390 track, thereby definitely wasting
>(2*27998)-32760=23236 bytes per track (regardless of any Program Binder
>considerations)?
Neither BINDER nor the Linkage Editor write object modules, although they read
them.
Both fill the track for load modules, and block size is meaningless for
bprogram objects.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM
Tony Harminc wrote:
>As it happens I heard a CBC Radio interview with Frampton a couple of days
>ago. I wasn't a great fan back in the day, but the interview was
interesting.
In article <68c2e717-9481-48c0-b6a2-855c33c44...@sinenomine.net> you wrote:
> What incantation of tar or pax do I need to use to create a tar ball under
> Unix System Services such that it can be transferred to a Linux system and
> untarred there? Just the straight -cf doesn???t seem to do the
Thanks -- that's GREAT, much appreciated. (The silence was giving me a
headache!)
May I quote you, with attribution? Editor likes quotes and they can't be
anonymous.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
What incantation of tar or pax do I need to use to create a tar ball under Unix
System Services such that it can be transferred to a Linux system and untarred
there? Just the straight -cf doesn’t seem to do the trick nor using the -U -X
option.
Neale
Hi . We are appending the timestamp to a CSV file and when we do the same we
see the microsecond part is different for all the rows . Is there a way to
make it same for all of the rows ?
Here below is the control card we used
OUTREC PARSE=(%01=(ENDBEFR=C'|',FIXLEN=4),
>>> Hi . We are appending the timestamp to a CSV file and when we do the
same we see the microsecond part is different for all the rows .
> Is there a way to make it same for all of the rows ?
You created your own time stamp using a incrementing sequence number of 6
bytes using the following
On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:00:04 -0400, Don Poitras wrote:
>
>z/OS scp is BAD. There's no way to tell it to do binary without doing
>something like Paul's piping conniptions.
>
With conniptioned ssh, you can archive, transfer, and extract in a single
ugly command, either push or pull.
On the first
On 5/3/19 1:00 PM, Don Poitras wrote:
z/OS scp is BAD. There's no way to tell it to do binary without doing
something like Paul's piping conniptions.
Many will tell you that scp itself is not-good and that you should use
sftp instead.
Perhaps z/OS's scp is worse than scp by itself.
--
We have a vendor debugging product that is constantly causing 0C1 and 0C4
abends since we have upgraded to COBOL 6.2. It also caused these abends
when we were at COBOL 4,2, but the abend rate has grown considerably after
the upgrade.
The vendor has produced countless patches, but so far they have
Figuring that this is 'working as designed', I have started a SHARE
requirement, where discussion could take place. My suggested improvment is
that for multi-unit, multi-volume datasets (and I realize this probably mostly
applies to tape) a consolidated list of volumes for the concatenated
In article
you wrote:
> On 5/3/19 1:00 PM, Don Poitras wrote:
> > z/OS scp is BAD. There's no way to tell it to do binary without doing
> > something like Paul's piping conniptions.
> Many will tell you that scp itself is not-good and that you should use
> sftp instead.
> Perhaps z/OS's scp is
Not for OBJECT modules. The Binder calls a routine to determine the
remaining space on the track, round down to the next multplie of 1k,
and writes no more than that amount on that track.
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:08 AM David Spiegel wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
> If someone uses BLKSIZE=32760, isn't it
I wonder how he's feeling? Ringing in his ears?
Mike Wawiorko
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
If he asks us again "I want you, to show me the way", we will.
Kees
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Mike Wawiorko
> Sent: 03 May, 2019 14:04
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Peter Frampton and IBM
>
In OS/360, IEBCOPY couldn't reblock load modules. In OS/VS, it could, with the
appropriate control statement.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Greg Price
Sent: Friday, May 3,
On Fri, 3 May 2019 14:03:49 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>In OS/360, IEBCOPY couldn't reblock load modules. In OS/VS, it could, with the
>appropriate control statement.
>
When IEBCOPY reblocks a module, does it leave any audit trail? That
might be of interest in case of the OP's problem.
--
When I scp or sftp the tar ball to the Linux system it complains that it
doesn't recognize the file as an archive:
$ tar -tf inc.tar
tar: This does not look like a tar archive
tar: Skipping to next header
tar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors
I had created it with tar -cf
In article <0294809266169973.wa.nealesinenomine@listserv.ua.edu> you wrote:
> I use scp which I assumed defaulted to binary. So I did it with sftp and
> explicitly used binary and all was good. The scp/sftp utility we wrote for
> CMS defaults to binary so I had made an incorrect assumption.
Ok thanks Kolusu. That worked ..
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
On Fri, 3 May 2019 13:12:21 -0400, Don Poitras wrote:
>
>You don't say what error you're receiving. If it's a permission problem,
>use the -o option to disable tar from passing the owner across. ...
>
>If I don't do that, the sender's UID is set and I can't delete the
>files and I have to get
Simple question. Did you ftp in binary mode?
Mark Jacobs
Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email.
GPG Public Key -
https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get=markjac...@protonmail.com
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, May 3, 2019 2:26 PM, Neale Ferguson wrote:
> When I
On Fri, 3 May 2019 13:26:15 -0500, Neale Ferguson wrote:
>When I scp or sftp the tar ball to the Linux system it complains that it
>doesn't recognize the file as an archive:
>
>$ tar -tf inc.tar
>tar: This does not look like a tar archive
>tar: Skipping to next header
>tar: Exiting with failure
I use scp which I assumed defaulted to binary. So I did it with sftp and
explicitly used binary and all was good. The scp/sftp utility we wrote for CMS
defaults to binary so I had made an incorrect assumption. Thanks all for the
help.
Neale
I'm confused
How does a BUILD statement with 12 comma constants produce output which
contains only 3 commas?
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On
> Behalf Of Ron Thomas
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 9:53 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Appending
IBM’s OpenSSL implémentation “attempted” to fix transfers via scp by treating
all files like they were character and does a code conversion from 1047 to 8859
or some such nonsense.
Scp will not work without some calestentics that are just plain frustrating but
Z makes sure it will be
I'm curious about how many here run ASG's Workload Scheduler, which was
Beta-42, and before that was created by Pecan. The shop I'm working for still
runs it and is still happy with it for years though they've asked me at times
to do some specialized reporting about tasks and schedules (which
Yes, the z/OS scp is BAD. Grant seemed to think that scp on other platforms
was also not-good. That's what I was asking about.
In article <71e3e36b-a792-4307-b6b8-67f2ced4a...@hogstrom.org> you wrote:
> IBM???s OpenSSL impl??mentation ???attempted??? to fix transfers via scp by
> treating all
44 matches
Mail list logo
