for the records:-
/*===*/
/* Rexx - Invoke IEBUPDTE with alternate ddnames.*/
/*===*/
Iebupdte_Utility: Procedure
Well, if you us the downlevel macro libraries then you should be fine. If you
do something specific to 2.4 or 2.5 then you might have issues.
Are the 2.3 and 2.5 systems on the same hardware?
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Bill
Anything whose parameters you can construct in REXX can be called with ADDRESS
LINKPGM, and the STORAGE BIF helps, but for some things you need a supporting
function in another language. Writing a REXX-aware routine is fairly
straightforward.
After adding BLOCKTOKENSIZE=SMALL to the DCBE
The return from the note worked
Thank you
> On Mar 25, 2023, at 3:04 PM, Binyamin Dissen
> wrote:
>
> Before using a nuke to kill an ant, I would suggest verifying that the NOTE
> is
> being issued when you expect it to be issued and that
From Figure 7-1, page 7-21 of SA23-7832-13, z/Architecture Principles
of Operations, May, 2022:
STORE CLOCK STCK S C ⁸ ⁹ A
STORE CLOCK EXTENDED STCKE S C ⁸ ⁹ A
Lack of a "P" in the " ⁸ ⁹ A" column of the table indicates
instructions are not "privileged".
Before using a nuke to kill an ant, I would suggest verifying that the NOTE is
being issued when you expect it to be issued and that the position is what you
expect. That you issued CHECK.
Also, what device is the file on?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 11:39:09 -0400 Joseph Reichman
wrote:
:>For all
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 23:35:56 -0500, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
>... The STCK and STCKE instructions only provide
>read-only access to the TOD clock and are not privileged or restricted
>by hardware, but they are not taught in programming texts either.
>
Citation needed.
--
gil
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 08:27:37 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:
>On 3/23/2023 12:52 PM, Steve Austin wrote:
>> After lurking for on here for years, it's nice to have contributed something
>> some found useful.
>
>Quite useful. Thanks!
>
Yes. That uses address LINKPGM in a fashion similar to the SAMPLIB
On 3/23/2023 12:52 PM, Steve Austin wrote:
After lurking for on here for years, it's nice to have contributed something
some found useful.
Quite useful. Thanks!
--
Phoenix Software International
Edward E. Jaffe
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
I assumed same hardware, different OS level. The answer is, as with most
things, is it depends. Are you using any specific 2.5 operating system
features/functions. Any LE services, was it link edited with LE, and so on.
The best way to be sure is to run the program on a 2.3 system and see what
http://www1.cuny.edu/events/fyei/spring_1998/humor.html
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 8:16 AM Peter Relson wrote:
>
> z/OS does not support setting the clock past the end of the first epoch. Some
> forthcoming z/OS release will.
> Until then it would probably not be a good idea to try to fake out the
Archlevel might be too high for target machine.
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 4:31 AM Bill Giannelli wrote:
>
> I assembled and link/edited a module on a z/OS 2.5 system.
> Now I want to use or execute that module on a z/OS 2.3 system.
> Might that cause any issues?
> thanks
> Bill
>
>
z/OS does not support setting the clock past the end of the first epoch. Some
forthcoming z/OS release will.
Until then it would probably not be a good idea to try to fake out the system.
Things will break.
z/OS does support expiration dates (such as mortgage end, etc) beyond the
first epoch.
On our systems, I am seeing, "under z/OS V2.03", on the initial TSO screen.
thanks
Bill
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 12:32:39 +, Peter Relson wrote:
>Could someone point out where they have seen "z/OS v2.05"?
>
>These are the things that I know to be the same:
>z/OS 2.5
>z/OS v2r5
>z/OS 02.05.00
>
If you browse a load module (not a program object) in hex, an early record
(record 3 in some simple cases) has information such as
Ø..5695PMB01 ^
810DDCFF4002020035
05256957420102538F130F
Where "23082F" is the julian yyddd date in packed decimal format, and
"0103305F" is the time
Could someone point out where they have seen "z/OS v2.05"?
These are the things that I know to be the same:
z/OS 2.5
z/OS v2r5
z/OS 02.05.00
z/OS v2.5 would be the same but I don't think is an intended use.
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
I assembled and link/edited a module on a z/OS 2.5 system.
Now I want to use or execute that module on a z/OS 2.3 system.
Might that cause any issues?
thanks
Bill
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
17 matches
Mail list logo
