The doc isn't "wrong", it's just a bit overstated. It's a good idea to follow normal linkage conventions (well normal from 1970) and they're encouraging that. This is an ancient facility, and for all I know it may have been a more vital requirement in the past.
Also, I have no insider's knowledge of how the system works (like Mulder & Relson). It's conceivable that things could change to where you'll fail somehow if you don't preserve the registers. I would (and do) just follow normal saving and restoring conventions in an ETXR. It certainly won't hurt. sas On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Thomas David Rivers <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve Smith wrote: > >> You'll have to spell it as ETXR, and if by "offset" you mean offset >> from 0, then sure. >> >> You can do what you want with the registers. The ETXR runs under an >> IRB on the mother task, so I'm not sure why any of them need to be >> saved. >> >> Beyond that, I've no idea what you're planning on doing, but ETXRs >> aren't normally suitable for doing much. >> >> >> sas >> > > > Hmm - then why is the doc so clear that the ETXR (spelled right :-) ) > needs to save/restore the regs? > > Is the doc wrong? > Regarding the use of it - I just want a notification that the subtask > ended early (perhaps because of an abend.) > > - Dave R. - > > -- > [email protected] Work: (919) 676-0847 > Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- sas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
