I've been programming in assembler since 1960 and I find CON= to be understandable but highly counterintuitive.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 3:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: JCL COND Parameter On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:50:00 +0000, Edgington, Jerry wrote: >Condition code testing in JCL, has always seemed backward logic to me. > I suspect it's intuitive to an Assembler programmer accustomed to branching *around* a section of code. >But, as I understand it, maybe, the reason STEPA030 didn't run was because >STEP000 had RC=0 and STEPA030 didn't specify a STEP name. > >COND=(7,GT) means all steps prior to the condition code testing would have to >(7,GT). > Use IF. It's more intuitive nowadays. >-----Original Message----- >From: Tony Sambataro >Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 2:34 PM > >the jcl below should execute as far a cond code handling. I believe the two >steps with COND= coded should both execute. But in my test only the one with a >step name coded runs. Would appreciate other opinions. > >//STEP000 EXEC PGM=IEFBR14 >//STEP010 EXEC PGM=IDCAMS >//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=X >//SYSIN DD * > SET MAXCC=16 >//STEPA030 EXEC PGM=IEFBR14,COND=(7,GT) >//STEPA040 EXEC PGM=IEFBR14,COND=(7,GT,STEP010) > >STEP000 IEFBR14 ------------------ R0000 >STEP010 IDCAMS ------------------ R0016 >STEPA030 IEFBR14 ------------------ NXEQ >STEPA040 IEFBR14 ------------------ R0000 -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
