Hey Ed, thanks for the quick answer. Unfortunately NI SDWAERRD,X'FF'-SDWACLUP did not seem to make any difference.
Perhaps I am wrong in my whole model of what is going on. I can't see the higher ESTAE(X)(s) if any; I am just inferring their existence and parameters. If I don't do any of this, if I don't issue any ESTAE(X), then *something* gets control on "normal" ABENDs but apparently not on operator cancels. (The code is LE with TRAP(ON,SPIE). LE is documented as not processing Sx22 ABENDs.) Incidentally, setting a retry point and issuing a new ABEND there did not work either, contrary to my hopes. BTW, the issue is not Sx22 abend codes per se. If I issue ABEND X'122',,,SYSTEM (from my code, but outside of ESTAE(X) recovery) then LE condition handling intercepts it. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Questions about ESTAE(X) On 8/27/2013 4:52 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > Question 1: Just want to confirm that I am reading the documentation > correctly On ESTAE(X), TERM=YES basically says "Yes, I want my > recovery routine driven for operator cancel and things like that" and > TERM=NO says "only drive the recovery routine for 'normal' ABENDs." Is > that basically correct? Yes. > Question 2: (Assuming I am reading TERM=YES correctly) if an ESTAE(X) > TERM=YES is chained after an ESTAE(X) TERM=NO, is there any way to get > the chained recovery routine to percolate a TERM=YES-type ABEND? My understanding is that a TERM=NO exit is skipped when SDWACLUP=ON. But, that understanding comes strictly from empirical evidence. I have not seen it in the code... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
