I'm looking for a good example of using a REXX panel exit.
I've tried and get an error.
Here is the pertinent code and message:
)PROC
PANEXIT ((Field1 Field2 Field3 zuser),REXX,PANEXIT,EXITDATA,MSG=PEX001)
)END
Error message:
Exit data or message field defined incorrectly for panel exit.
I think you must have a '' before 'EXITDATA':
PANEXIT ((Field1 Field2 Field3 zuser),REXX,PANEXIT,EXITDATA,MSG=PEX001)
Best Regards,
Thomas Berg
___
Thomas Berg Specialist zOS/RQM/IT Delivery Swedbank AB (Publ)
That solved the issue - thank you (now why didn't I see that)
--
Lionel B. Dyck
BMC Software
Product Development Lead, Common Install and Services
10431 Morado Circle, Building 5, Austin, Texas 78759
Office Phone: 512-340-6031 (extension
Dyck, Lionel wrote:
I'm looking for a good example of using a REXX panel exit.
On what z/OS and ISPF levels are you?
Error message:
Exit data or message field defined incorrectly for panel exit.
Please post the return code coming with the message. And also the content of
MSG before and after
Dyck, Lionel wrote:
That solved the issue - thank you (now why didn't I see that)
Good catch from Thomas who kindly helped you. Your error message as posted
distracted me (and perhaps rest of us too) way too much. :-)
I have a quick look at my panels and yes, ampersands () are used for
Here in this forum and elsewhere the notion that since the binder's
support for AMODE(SPLIT) had been little used it would not be
necessary or desirable to provide an analogous binder facility for
mixing AMODE(31) and AMODE(64) in the same executable was widely
reported. (I use the word
PMFJI here, but it is my impression (please correct me if I am wrong) that
XPLINK is the z/OS analog of the calling mechanism developed in Germany for
z/Linux from the kernel on up to user space. Yes, it's fast, but it provides
no call backtrace (i.e., no register saveareas) unless
From the description that sounds like IBM Migration Utility - Converts CA
Easytrieve to 'COBOL'. None of the doc I could find specified what level of
'COBOL' was produced though...
It produces the source, which is then dynamically compiled with whatever COBOL
you are running.
Paul
ShowMvs can so I think you can also (source is available for ShowMvs)
On 24.04.2014 16:42, Charles Mills wrote:
Is there any way for an (authorized) program to determine whether
SYS(EXITS(IEFU8n)) has been specified? That is, whether IEFU8n (where 'n' is
3, 4 or 5) is active.
Note that z/OS
Excellent thought. I shall look into that. Thanks,
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Miklos Szigetvari
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Any way to programmatically
Charles Mills wrote:
Is there any way for an (authorized) program to determine whether
SYS(EXITS(IEFU8n)) has been specified? That is, whether IEFU8n (where 'n' is
3, 4 or 5) is active.
Note that z/OS allows a module to be added to an exit even though the exit is
not active and the module
Charles Mills wrote:
Excellent thought. I shall look into that. Thanks,
You will get it there.
From Mark Zelden's nice tool this little line:
TMEXAAMFLAGS,EXAAMACTIVE Is it really active?
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
Yes RESMIL(5) will reduce cpu consumption, it will also potentially cause
performance delays to your jobs, as each system will hold the enq request for a
minimum of 5 ms. If you have any applications that generate alot of enqueues,
that need to be sent through the ring, they will run longer.
Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
From Mark Zelden's nice tool this little line:
Sorry, it is actually in FILE 492 which is from Roland Schiradin.
Sorry Mark for troubling you. I was sniffing around your webpages recently and
got hold up for other urgent work before posting this.
Groete / Greetings
It is indeed there:
SYS
TYPE(0,4-7,14-15,18,21,26,30,36,41-42,50,60-90,94,100-103,109-116,118-20
EXITS(IEFU29,IEFUTL,IEFUJI,IEFUSO,IEFUJP,IEFUSI,IEFUJV,IEFACTRT,IEFU85,I
OMVS
TYPE(0,4-7,14-15,18,21,26,30,36,41-42,50,60-90,94,100-103,109-116,118-20
EXITS(IEFU85,IEFU84,IEFU83)
I talked to the developers today and IMU generates fairly vanilla COBOL
code. It should compileable with any supported COBOL release.
Is there a problem that we need to be aware of?
Ken Hume
(720)396-7776
kph...@us.ibm.com
IBM APA Product Manager
IBM PD Tools Client Advocate
-Original
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:33:50 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
PMFJI here, but it is my impression (please correct me if I am wrong)
that XPLINK is the z/OS analog of the calling mechanism developed in
Germany for z/Linux from the kernel on up to user space.
I don't know about that. XPLINK
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:21:52 -0500, Roger W. Suhr wrote:
It's really simple, I always tell my younger colleagues: If you're
willing to stay in the office after work hours, I'll stay with you
and show/help you with a few things, and where to find more
information. If not, don't expect me to
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:32:32 +0800, Timothy Sipples wrote:
I remember a school of thought that thunking might not have been a good
idea because it encouraged developers to do what they do best: nothing. :-)
I never heard of thunking before. It sounds to me like a derogatory term
for calling
Mike Schwab wrote:
begin extract
Easytrieve plus has a case structure and end-???. I assume you would
need Cobol 2 or higher to have equivalent structures.
/end extract
and this is correct in the sense that straightforward mapping of one
case figure into another one---SWITCH in C or SELECT in
On 4/24/2014 4:50 PM, Tom Marchant wrote:
I never heard of thunking before. It sounds to me like a derogatory term
for calling routines that run in different addressing modes. Is that what is
intended?
I first heard the term in a book on the OS/2 system design and
implementation, and I'm sure
Thanks. I can obviously find it in showmvs -- just thought I would ask.
Charles
Composed on a mobile: please excuse my brevity
Rob Scott rsc...@rocketsoftware.com wrote:
The SMF SST control block is not a GUPI nor is documented anywhere that I am
aware of.
The code in SHOWZOS is using
In 5357c6a4.3080...@charter.net, on 04/23/2014
at 09:56 AM, Gerhard Postpischil gerha...@charter.net said:
Nowadays companies need to assess applicant skills, but are not
willing to pay for (third party?) testing, even though it would save
them money. A small ISV I did consulting work for
If you say so. I seem to recall that FORTRAN was call by name, but I'm
remembering compiler theory from the early 1970's. So I could be wrong.
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 23:45
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:56:28 -0500, Anthony Fletcher wrote:
It is a while since there had been any discussion of appropriate values of
RESMIL and its effect on CPU consumptiom. It appears that there was general
concensus that RESMIL(OFF) would be a bad idea, and that RESMIL(0) would be
best
I wrote:
I don't know if I'd agree with that school of thought
Tom Marchant replied:
I hope that you are not suggesting that z/OS should not have been
released until everything ran AMODE 64. We might still be waiting.
Setting aside that thunking services are not particularly related to
I wrote:
Still wondering which IBM utility.
Dana Mitchell asks:
DId you see my post yesterday?
I saw your guess, yes. Based on subsequent contributions to this discussion
it doesn't appear to be the correct guess, but hey, you threw a dart. ;)
If somebody would like to contact me offline, feel
27 matches
Mail list logo
