Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

On 7/13/2012 10:48 AM, Lizette Koehler wrote: I though IBM had development forums for these kinds of questions. None that I know of. But, ISV members of Partnerworld have 'advocates' that should help them get the answers you need. Mine is a "rock star"! :) -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

Oh boy. One more thing to look at. Thanks, Lizette. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:22 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

inframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Charles Mills >Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:07 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? > >Thanks! That is indeed part of it. > >My SIGABND was *

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

1:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? Thanks! That is indeed part of it. My SIGABND was *not* driven for an operator CANCEL, however. No answer for what signal if any might be driven by an operator CANCEL. I guess I am going to have to

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:45:00 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: . . . >Yeah, in a perfect world there would be no bugs. But I had a bug in the field >(the first in 18 months!) that resulted in a loop, a CANCEL, and a modest mess >in CSA. > >Yes, I will fix the root cause bug. Yes, I resolve to be mor

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

In , on 07/13/2012 at 12:43 PM, Tony Harminc said: >FORCE is most certainly not just a stronger form of CANCEL He may be thinking of FORCE ARM. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Cong

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

st [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? On 7/13/2012 11:42 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > I sure don't see any mapping whatsoever of C librar

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

-- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:11 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: I mean, gee, S

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

ks and the LE books does not help. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:26 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? On 7

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

If you are a partner with IBM you could go to a development group and ask for clarification, I think. I though IBM had development forums for these kinds of questions. Lizette > > I sure don't see any mapping whatsoever of C library/UNIX signals to or from > traditional z/OS terminology: S0C

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

o:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:26 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? On 7/13/2012 9:39 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > I mean, gee, SIGILL is documented as "Invalid object module (ha

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

14,R15. Is than an invalid object module? (Not intended to be an exhaustive list of S0C1 causes.) Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Scott Ford Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subjec

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

I stand corrected about SIGKILL vs. SIGILL. On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:45:00 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > >BTW, this is z/OS batch (STC actually). Does operator CANCEL generate a >SIGKILL? Or ...? > I once suggested that for compatibility with existing UNIX conventions z/OS system shutdown should s

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

t [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? On 13 July 2012 12:10, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:11 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >I mean, gee, SIGILL is documented as "Invalid

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

On 13 July 2012 12:10, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > > >I mean, gee, SIGILL is documented as "Invalid object module (hardware and > >software)." > > > I didn't know that! SIGKILL is routinely used from command lines as an > unconditional cance

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

Gil,   Your right. Where does it stop. ESTAE used to be the norm Scott J Ford Software Engineer http://www.identityforge.com/   From: Paul Gilmartin To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:39:37 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >I mean, gee, SIGILL is documented as "Invalid object module (hardware and >software)." > I didn't know that! SIGKILL is routinely used from command lines as an unconditional cancel, because SIGKILL can't be caught. Don't trouble yourself

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

Not intended to be an exhaustive list of S0C1 causes.) Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Scott Ford Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS ter

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

y say "S0C1 = SIGILL, Operator CANCEL = ???"? > > Charles > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Scott Ford > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 7:43 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology? Hey Charles, I assume you have been here http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ib m.zos.r12.cbcpx01%2Ferrhndl.htm Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Jul 13, 2012,

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

Hey Charles, I assume you have been here http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.zos.r12.cbcpx01%2Ferrhndl.htm Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > I have looked in the manuals but I can't find this. Is the

Re: Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

Sent from my MetroPCS 4G Android deviceCharles Mills wrote:>I have looked in the manuals but I can't find this. Is there anywhere any >documentation mapping the relationship between z/OS events as we have known >and loved them for years, and C signals? > >I have figured out that SIGILL = S0C1 and

Relationship of C signals to z/OS terminology?

I have looked in the manuals but I can't find this. Is there anywhere any documentation mapping the relationship between z/OS events as we have known and loved them for years, and C signals? I have figured out that SIGILL = S0C1 and SIGEGV = S0C4. SIGFPE is pretty obvious. But what exactly in the