Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:46:50 -0500, Steve Smith wrote: >You need to set flag "S99NOCNV Do not use an existing allocation to satisfy >this request." But I don't know if BPXWDYN allows this. > z/OSIBM Using REXX and z/OS UNIX System Services Version 2 Release 3 SA23-2283-30 Chapter 6.

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread Sri h Kolusu
Gary, Use this trick to let BPXWDYN allocate to a new DD instead of using the existing one. (Credit to Paul Gilmartin who's made this discovery in one of his earlier discussion on IBM-Main which is available at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bit.listserv.ibm-main/QKKcj6LYBik/tF68-svA50sJ

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:14:29 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >I can't speak for BPXWDYN, but I remember when REUSE became available in TSO. >Before that, a CLIST writer (this was before REXX was ported to TSO) had to >code like this: > >CONTROL NOMSG >FREE DD(like-I-care-if-it's-allocated)

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
Gilmartin Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ? On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:29:04 -0600, John McKown wrote: >On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Gary Freestone wrote: >> >> Chasing down a bug in my code lead

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:29:04 -0600, John McKown wrote: >On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Gary Freestone wrote: >> >> Chasing down a bug in my code lead me to discover an idiosyncrasy with >> BPXWDYN that I think is a bug, but maybe not. So I'm seeking your opinions. > >‚ÄčI think this is normal for

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread John McKown
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Gary Freestone wrote: > These days we are opting for BPXWDYN in our REXXs instead of TSO ALLOC. > One > of the main reason for the switch is BPXWDYN's ability to return the DDNAME > it allocated via the RTDDN parameter. > > > > Chasing down a

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:46:50 -0500, Steve Smith wrote: >You need to set flag "S99NOCNV Do not use an existing allocation to satisfy >this request." But I don't know if BPXWDYN allows this. > I thought such an option was added to BPXWDYN several years ago, but I can't find it in the Ref. I

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread Binyamin Dissen
I don't believe there is a way you can force BPXWDYN to do this. What you can try is check the DDNAME for SYSn, though if you are running split screen Another option is to force a DDNAME (perhaps Zhhmmsst?) On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:18:13 +1100 Gary Freestone wrote:

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread scott Ford
Gary, What are you trying to do in the Rexx program/clist ? Scott On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > You need to set flag "S99NOCNV Do not use an existing allocation to satisfy > this request." But I don't know if BPXWDYN allows this. > > Depends on what

Re: BPXWDYN - Bug or no bug ?

2018-02-19 Thread Steve Smith
You need to set flag "S99NOCNV Do not use an existing allocation to satisfy this request." But I don't know if BPXWDYN allows this. Depends on what you call a bug... DYNALLOC itself has driven me crazy with all the various flags and options trying to figure out "convertible", etc. sas On Mon,