This is a commercial product. Customers are relatively tolerant of a fatal 
error message. They don't like it, but they know software has problems. OTOH 
they are really put off by "your product blew up." Even though it's 
fundamentally the same thing, particularly if you have an ESTAE that intercepts 
the ABEND and turns it into an error message.

OT but relevant to the above point, I went to some trouble to make it so that 
the product put out an error message for "this machine is a lower architecture 
than supported" rather than blowing up with a S0C1.

Charles


-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Brian Chapman
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 3:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IARV64 - why ABEND rather than return with reason code?

I found this to be the most irritating aspect of working with 64 bit areas.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 5:23 PM Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org wrote:

> I have an application that uses IARV64 REQUEST=GETCOMMON,COND=YES. I have
> tested with an unreasonable request size and gotten a return with a reason
> code as expected.
>
> I recently had the IARV64 fail, due to my bug that I have located. But what
> surprised me is that I got an SDC2 ABEND rather than a return with a reason
> code. I would rather get a return because I can handle it more neatly than
> an ABEND (although yes, I do catch the ABEND with ESTAE). Why the ABEND
> rather than a return? Can I force a return rather than an ABEND? Is this
> documented somewhere? (I obviously did not see it.)
>
> In case it matters the reason code in question is xx0042yy, Guard size is
> greater than object size. (And again, I have located the underlying bug; I
> don't need help with that; just with "why ABEND rather than return?")
>
> z/OS V2R2 and V2R3, if that matters.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to