On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:32:54 -0700, Skip Robinson <[email protected]> 
wrote:

>The output shows this:
>
>   IN LMOD CEEPLPKA IN THE SCEERUN LIBRARY. THE RETURN CODE (04)
>   EXCEEDED THE ALLOWABLE VALUE. DATE 14.247 - TIME 02:35:37
>
>It's not at all uncommon for the binder to return code 04 for various
>reasons that are not actually 'problems'. In this case we see messages
>about conflicting module attributes. This happens. Life goes on. It's way
>less dangerous than, say, global warming.
>
>The real problem here is that SMPE is being too prissy. If 04 'exceeded
>the allowable value', then the allowable value is set too low. 04 is only
>a warning after all. Go into the SMPE dialog and examine the GLOBAL
>UTILITY options for entry LKED. If it says 'RETURN CODE: 0', you will
>incur never ending grief now and in the future. Because of your LKED
>entry, SMPE turns 04 into 08.
>
>Our 2.1 SMPE environment has already been tailored for us, so I can't tell
>how it came out of the box. Now it's set to 'RETURN CODE: 4', which we've
>used for as long as I can remember. This way we get 08 only for real
>problems.

Hi Skip,
If you read my previous reply's you will know that I sucessfully applied 
UI18451 just to test this for him this morning. However he is running  into 
some fundamental problem . The bind of  CEEPLPKA should result in a return code 
0 (not 4). I also have my binder global option set to 4 but that is irrelevent 
in this problem because it is being overridden by the lmod Return Code subentry 
(it specifies 0).  The problem seems to be with the entries that are 
autoinclude by the binder don't seem to have the proper rent reus flag set. As 
I said before an example is the module STRXFRM that should be RENT, REUS, REFR .

IEW2322I 1220  1272    NAME CEEPLPKA(R)                       MAX ACCEPTABLE 
RC=00  

Doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to