Guys, Yeah I found it it happens to be another Well known ISV’s exit. But I have a question in regard to when this exit is called it’s like IRREVX01 , so I assume (I know ) that the WTO should be re-entrant. We are basically using it for diagnostics if needed. Is my assumption correct on the WTO ?
Scott On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 3:59 PM Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 09:30:30 -0500, Peter Relson wrote: > > ><snip> > >Yes it's documented and legit, but it's a change in behaviour over the > >last few z/OS releases. In IIRC z/OS 1.x, WTO did not clobber AR15, > >and STORAGE OBTAIN did not change the high half of R1. > ></snip> > > > >You have no way of knowing if that is true or not. All that you could > >possibly say is that you did not encounter such a case. The environment > >that could cause such a case might even not have been under your control > >and might be uncommon. ... > > > I.e. the user, or even an ISV, was depending on undocumented behavior's > remaining unchanged. > > >The statement is not correct about STORAGE OBTAIN. The high half of R1 > has > >been changed on STORAGE OBTAIN ever since high halves existed. ... > > > Does code written at a time before "high halves existed", or perhaps even > before ARs existed, and depending only on OS behavior documented at > such a time, continue to operate correctly? If so, a user has no ground > for a complaint. If it fails now, IBM should graciously apologize and move > on. The pertinent aphorism is, "You can't make an omelet without breaking > eggs." > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Scott Ford IDMWORKS z/OS Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
