COBOL Migration v4 to v6.1 - CONDITIONS OF INITIALIZATION

>Since migrating from COBOL v4 to COBOL v6.1 a few runtime abends have occur= >red which seem to have a root cause of data items not being initialized. = >These data-items seem to be under a group level where the group level is in= >itialized. >The compile's diagnostic errors listing shows al

Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it?

In late December, 2017 there was an announcement letter for Container Based Pricing. It involves a new billing strategy based on containers. Wonder if the processors are connected to this. https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca=an=897=ENUS217-519 Matthew On Fri, 8 Nov

Re: How can I generate a UUID in a z/OS COBOL Program

We (IBM COBOL development) have accepted an RFE to add this capability of genrating a UUID via a new Intrinsic Function, it should be available early next year. Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! <<

Re: How can I generate a UUID in a z/OS COBOL Program

Tom, That is a good thing to have available in COBOL but as others have already said, wouldn't this be better implemented as an LE callable function available to other HLL's besides COBOL (including Assembler)? Or is it the intention of the IBM COBOL Development team to implement the COBOL

Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it?

Fortunately online Help panels clearly describe the acronym meaning: "CBPs - Displays the active/unassigned container based processors installed on your system." So, it is CONTAINER BASED PROCESSOR. We know the name. Not the purpose of CBPs. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland W dniu

Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it?

This is actually documented in the SA4.1 documentation: OA55159 – Additional IBM z14 Exploitation Support (November 2018) OA55159 provides additional new function support for IBM z14. The following hardware automation commands are enhanced to support new special purpose processor type Container

Test Test

-- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: WTO

CHECK MPFLIST settings like this, which will suppress all msgs not specifically listed in the list : .DEFAULT,AUTO(NO),SUP(YES) -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Dan D Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:09 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: WTO

Re: Test Test

Getting a bit . testy, aren't we ? Thank You, Chris Hoelscher| Lead Database Administrator | IBM Global Technical Services| T 502.476.2538 or 502.407.7266 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of esst...@juno.com Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019

Re: WTO

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems more likely that WTO has changed registers and affected the processing of the exit. Obvious candidates are condition code and regs 0,1,15 (I can't remember whether R0 is used). Are you using MF=(E, PARMLIST)? Time for a test module to run the edit where you

Re: WTO

Scott, Are you writing routcde 11 to SYSLOG? Issue D C and see what it says. We don't here... HARDCOPY LOG=(SYSLOG,OPERLOG) CMDLEVEL=CMDS ROUT=(1-10,12-128)<--- no 11 Try another routcde and see if it's visible. Dan

Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it?

No problem! :-) -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 12:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it? Bob, You're right, I made mistake with your name

WTO

All: I have a bit of an issue I am trying to resolve in Assembler. We use a skeleton exit from another vendor and it has been working fine. It is re-entrant and keep seeing normal WTO's , i.e. ; WTO 'X',ROUTCDE=11 , are not appearing on SYSLOG. We are using the WTOS to track through the flow

Re: WTO

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 16:09, Rupert Reynolds wrote: > > Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems more likely that WTO has changed > registers and affected the processing of the exit. Obvious candidates are > condition code and regs 0,1,15 (I can't remember whether R0 is used). IIRC WTO has also

Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it?

Bob, You're right, I made mistake with your name and missed rest of PTF description. I apologize for the faux pas. Thank you for correcting me. Regards -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland W dniu 2019-11-07 o 19:12, Richards, Robert B. pisze: Radoslaw, Feel free to call me "Bob".

Re: WTO

Scott Are you checking R15 for a zero return code after you call WTO? In the past I had a similar issue with WTOs not appearing because I was getting a non-zero return code. HTH Mike On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 22:30, scott Ford wrote: > All: > > I have a bit of an issue I am trying to resolve in

Re: BPXWUNIX Improvements

On 2019-11-09 10:21 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 21:04:28 +0800, David Crayford wrote: Lionel came up with the best solution which was to run "env" and then to use the result stem for all the other bpxwunix() calls! Great tip! If that's the UNIX/shell command "env", use some

Re: BPXWUNIX Improvements

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 21:04:28 +0800, David Crayford wrote: > >Lionel came up with the best solution which was to run "env" and then to >use the result stem for all the other bpxwunix() calls! Great tip! > If that's the UNIX/shell command "env", use some caution because its output may not have

Re: CPACF for TN3270 encryption

System SSL (aka TLS) will work without ICSF being active and without CEX cards being available. You may not like the performance and some functions (i.e. specifically ECC) may not work. Elliptic Curve (ECC) requires that CEX cards are available and ICSF is active, to drive those operations to

Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it?

Peter Relson of IBM stated in his response: >The speculation is entertaining. But you should not expect any information >to be forthcoming. >At this point it is my understanding that there are no product >deliverables for which "CBP" is relevant. >Yes, you can see fields in control blocks with

Re: WTO

All, Big thx , I can tell it’s Friday, brain cells are tired ...lol On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 4:13 PM Barkow, Eileen wrote: > CHECK MPFLIST settings like this, which will suppress all msgs not > specifically listed in the list > : > .DEFAULT,AUTO(NO),SUP(YES) > > -Original Message- >

Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it?

Sorry about the typo - meant to say, there ISN'T a 'CBP' product. Regards Parwez Hamid​ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Parwez Hamid Sent: 09 November 2019 00:39 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: CBPs (processors) - what is it?

Re: compiler search order for includes

Most of us use the dbx debugger for AMODE 64. It's not a GUI and you have to run in a shell but it does the trick! Why don't you just write all your code in C? Why do you have a dependency on assembler? On 2019-11-08 8:00 PM, Joseph Reichman wrote: Don’t think so almost a clean compile I

Re: compiler search order for includes

Most of my code is assembler a lot of is authorized The inline assembler has a huge advantage to me unfortunatelybesides XDC there is no HLL debugger Metal still produces readable assembler unlike psudeo assembler I can use TEST Thanks for your help > On Nov 8, 2019, at 1:29 AM,

C code

This particular set of C functions were similar processing which I had as an exported functions in the windows client I thought it would be a easier to have the same code on z/is albeit the platform related stuff which I use #ifdef __MVS__ or #ifdef MSVC Thanks

Re: compiler search order for includes

Good luck! I think you're shuffling the deck-chairs! In other words your moving from one problem to another :) You may find that Metal/C isn't as easy as you think and writing fopen()/fread() is actually quite difficult. On 2019-11-08 3:10 PM, Joseph Reichman wrote: Thanks debugging the

Re: compiler search order for includes

Don’t think so almost a clean compile I need a lot of storage which why I went AMODE 64 Problem is debug tool at least the mainframe one doesn't debug AMODE 64 these are C functions so CEETEST ctest wont work AMODE 64 even with zos explorer I think there are too many issues with amode 64

Re: compiler search order for includes

I figured there was learning curve for linux ? so.. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 7:04 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: compiler search order for includes Most of us use the dbx debugger

Re: JES NOTIFY EMAIL=

I agree with everything you just said. :) I also don’t personally care for the fact that JES2 has to rely on a function of z/OSMF for this feature. Give me the option to either leverage zOSMF, or a more generic option to write the notifications to a site specified JES NODE/output class that

BPXWUNIX Improvements

I want to thank David Crayford - your suggestions on the bpxwunix environment variables to speed up git was the right direction. The calls when from 10-15 seconds (we have a slow lpar) to 1-3 seconds. Lionel B. Dyck < Website: http://www.lbdsoftware.com

Re: BPXWUNIX Improvements

Thanks Lionel! Lionel came up with the best solution which was to run "env" and then to use the result stem for all the other bpxwunix() calls! Great tip! On 2019-11-08 8:27 PM, Lionel B Dyck wrote: I want to thank David Crayford - your suggestions on the bpxwunix environment variables to

Re: JES NOTIFY EMAIL=

David I feel your pain, we are also a TSS shop, CA (BROADCOM) has some good doc on converting RACF to TSS, if you need I'll see if I can get the link to you. my previous reply to Brian never was posted, agree, and what I do not understand, is the freebee software like JES2MAIL and other paid