Re: Anyone know where COOLGEN gets its COBOL compile parameters

Answer from the CA message board: The compiler options are in the TICCMPL clist member. Client can now go home. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:37 PM To: IBM-MAIN@L

A proof-of-concept project lets you boldly go where you've never been before

Destination z: A proof-of-concept project lets you boldly go where you've never been before Proof-of-concept (POC) demonstration projects can blaze a trail, doing something on a small scale, for the first time, but perhaps changing basic assumptions and potentially influencing an industry or t

Anyone know where COOLGEN gets its COBOL compile parameters

X-posted IBM-MAIN and CA. Sorry for an off-the-wall question. I have a client in crisis. I know next to nothing about COOLGEN and have no quick access to doc. The whole problem is too long to explain but can anyone point me to what configuration file or the like in COOLGEN drives the parameters it

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

On 7/31/2012 10:56 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: What about TSO? On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:17, Steve Comstock wrote: We're both familiar with UNIX, which classically runs each process in a separate address space. How much simpler or more effective could it be? Likewise z/VM. Yes, well, each batc

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:56:56 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >In z/OS, I can't even run an authorized program from an EXEC except with >severe constraints: > >o It must be under TSO, not USS or IRXJCL The REXX exec can be invoked from a UNIX shell, gil, and run an APF-authorized program, as both e

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

IBM *could* enhance TSO to do multi-address space processing, now. But MVT, back when TSO was originally designed and coded, did not have the facilities. The problem seems to be that IBM just doesn't think that TSO is really strategic. TSO is for "program development" in IBM's mind (as best as I

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

Also, a non-local spawn may not require a new address space if there is one available in the pool managed by WLM for BPXAS. On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM, McKown, John wrote: > I think gil is protesting the fact that spawn() can run multiple, logically > separate, processes in a single addres

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

What about TSO? On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:17, Steve Comstock wrote: >>> >> We're both familiar with UNIX, which classically runs each process in >> a separate address space. How much simpler or more effective >> could it be? Likewise z/VM. > > Yes, well, each batch job runs in a separate address

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

Oh, yea. And taking this way back to what I think was the origin of the question, which was running APF code in TSO, which requires a parallel TMP and the use of STATUS STOP, it might be nice if the parallel TMP code (which is APF, remember) were to change its execution key to "something else".

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

I think gil is protesting the fact that spawn() can run multiple, logically separate, processes in a single address space. And so a errant program in one process can overwrite the storage in another process. Of course, the simple way to avoid this problem is to remove the "shared" bit (extattr -

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

On 7/31/2012 9:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Storage protection in other OSes: On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:09:07 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote: Sigh. I keep forgetting (wishful thinking?) what a primitive OS z/OS is; that it provides no simple way a program can protect its storage from meddling by o

Re: ISMF QUESTION

To get a somewhat close guesstimate, you can drop the least significant digits to go from KB to MB, then to GB. Thus, if you have something like 123456789 KB; then, to guesstimate the number of MB you drop the last 3 digits; thus, you have 123456 MB; then to take this to GB you drop the next 3

Re: ISMF QUESTION

If you look up the architecture for 3390 dasd, you should get about 56664 bytes per track. If you take LISTPRT and run it into SAS+MXG then you can convert the bytes with the MGBYTES format. If you have other tools, let us know, we can generate some equivalent code for conversion. This website m

Re: Rexx Exec Help Desperately Sought!

George Rodriguez wrote: >Boy do I need help! There are (hot!) girls lurking too on IBM-MAIN... ;-D >In my Rexx exec I extract the userid ... from where? Just curious. >I then start building the file that has all the XMITIP parameter cards, >Now this is where I need your help... If what follo

ISMF QUESTION

Good Morning Gentle Readers,   I am trying to calculate the amount of space a for a HLQ using ISMF.  I am including the option of both:  Acquire Data from Volume . . . . . . . Y  Acquire Data if DFSMShsm Migrated  . . Y   My problem is that the space is calculated in kilobytes instead of tracks or

Re: Rexx Exec Help Desperately Sought!

You can just build a regular job stream in the file and issue a TSO SUBMIT on it. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of George Rodriguez Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:32 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Rexx Exe

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

>>> On 7/31/2012 at 11:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > But I suspect (with no evidence whatever) that Linux for z can run > a number of processes in private address spaces with better performance > than USS can run the same processes in shared address spaces. I can't speak to the performance aspe

Rexx Exec Help Desperately Sought!

Boy do I need help! From a Rexx exec that I somewhat wrote (I had help), I'm trying to execute XMITIP passing the parameters that XMITIP needs. My knowledge of the Rexx exec language is shaky at best, so I'll try to explain what I know that works. In my Rexx exec I extract the userid and from that

Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function

Storage protection in other OSes: On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:09:07 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote: >>> >> Sigh. I keep forgetting (wishful thinking?) what a primitive OS z/OS is; >> that it provides no simple way a program can protect its storage from >> meddling by others. z/OS still thinks it's runni

Why ain't there no XILL?

NILL? check. OILL? check. XILL? not present -- Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother respond

Re: Odd request: anyone know of where I might find a 4361 or a 4381?

If Archie can't find it... it is not out there. Mainframe Services, Inc. 6217 Vance Rd. Chattanooga, TN 37421 Phone: (423) 664-9000 sa...@mainframeservices.com On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Ed Finnell wrote: > I was thinking maybe GSA or some of the OEM's that used 43xx's internally. > MAS

Boulder SMPE server down

FYI, Boulder SMPE internet retrieval server is down. Changed to Rochester and that is working. MA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO

Re: Top posting

Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >> I seem to recall that in a previous thread, that standard was mentioned, but >> could not find it. >The first place I'd look is . Ah, yes, many thanks! And there is also a very handy link to IETF too. They are now havi