I might also add that I do not know nor claim that the macro invocation below is otherwise correct. This is my first rodeo with IARV64. The code is not yet complete and has not been tested, nor even been executed once.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 5:42 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Request for confirmation of an RCF IARV64 REQUEST=DETACH, + MEMOBJSTART=AV_RArea64, + V64COMMON=YES, + COND=YES, + MF=(E,IARV64L,COMPLETE) 8, "AFFINITY=" DOES NOT ALLOW THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING KEY(S) "V64X01-IARV6 COMMON". I now of course know that omitting AFFINITY=SYSTEM was an error on my part, but the quoted documentation "64-Bit Common memory objects are not affected by AFFINITY=LOCAL" led me to believe that AFFINITY=LOCAL, the default, was irrelevant. (That's the point of my proposed RFC.) (I might also add that the phrasing of the MNOTE is less than a model of clarity.) It's a common memory object -- does that answer the question? Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 5:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Request for confirmation of an RCF >I just got an MNOTE on a nIARV64 macro assembly. I It would have been helpful to have seen the actual invocation and the actual MNOTE, as well as information about what kind of memory object you were actually trying to detach. None of the following invocations gets an MNOTE: iarv64 request=DETACH,memobjstart=(2) iarv64 request=DETACH,memobjstart=(2),affinity=LOCAL iarv64 request=DETACH,memobjstart=(2),affinity=LOCAL,owner=NO iarv64 request=DETACH,memobjstart=(2),affinity=LOCAL,owner=YES iarv64 request=DETACH,memobjstart=(2),affinity=LOCAL,owner=YES* ,ttoken=(4) iarv64 request=DETACH,memobjstart=(2),affinity=SYSTEM, * v64common=NO iarv64 request=DETACH,memobjstart=(2),affinity=SYSTEM, * v64common=YES Nor did anything else that I tried with syntactically correct use of the other operands of request=DETACH. In general, I'm quite sure that your suggested update is wrong. You do not syntactically always need to specify AFFINITY=SYSTEM on REQUEST=DETACH. I would not be surprised if semantically there are such cases (but those would be represented by return/reason codes or abend/abendreason codes from the service, not by MNOTEs from the macro). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
