> From: "Tony Harminc" <t...@harminc.com> > On 19 November 2015 at 10:14, Gary Weinhold <weinh...@dkl.com> wrote: > > But you have a valid concern about vendors' assembler code. We should be > > asked whether we know about this. (snip) > One slighly related point: It has been the case from day 1 of MVS > (OS/VS2 R2) that even though GETMAIN can give out non-zeroed storage, > that storage will never contain data left over from another address > space, or from a fetch protected subpool in the current or common > space. This would be a violation of the MVS statement of system > integrity, and if found would be fixed very quickly.
As far as I know, OS/360 didn't zero GETMAIN storage, and didn't guarantee that it didn't have anything left over from another job, or other task of your program. OS/VS2 R1.x was mostly MVT with VS added, though there likely were changed to GETMAIN. (As well as I know it, MVT uses GETMAIN to allocate partitions for jobs, in addition to its usual use.) -- glen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
