I don't really understand what you are looking for. "LE compatible" for
Assembler really isn't ever an appropriate term. You say these are
"assembler
driver programs". If they are driving high-level languages (that MUST be
"LE
conforming") and you are trying to set the "condition/exception handling"
in the
Assembler driver but want it to IMPACT the HLL subroutines, then the ONLY
way to
do this is by making the drivers LE enabled Assembler routines.
Furthermore, running with TRAP(OFF) (set for your assembler driver) makes
some
of the HLL subroutine logic "unsup****ted". See the information at:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ceea3130/2.3.59.2
starting,
"Running with TRAP(OFF) (for exception diagnosis purposes) can cause
many side
effects, because Language Environment uses condition handling internally
and
requires TRAP(ON). When you run with TRAP(OFF), you can get side effects
even if
you do not encounter a software-raised condition, program check, or
abend."
***
If, on the other hand, your assembler drivers ONLY call assembler
subroutines
(that in turn only call assembler subroutines) and there are no HLL (or
LE-enabled Assembler) in the application (task), then you should be fine
using
ESTAE/ESPIE (at least for the time being).
***
Have you seen the information
"When TRAP(ON,NOSPIE) is specified in a non-CICS environment, Language
Environment will handle program interrupts and abends via an ESTAE. This
feature
is useful when you do not want Language Environment to issue an ESPIE
macro."
This MIGHT give you what you are looking for (again, if you have HLL
subroutines).
***
Finally, if you are a SHARE member, you really want to look at the
information
from SHARE session
"8234 - Exploit Condition Handling in LE - Move that Resume Cursor, I
Dare
You"
at:
http://shareew.prod.web.sba.com/proceedingmod/abstract.cfm?abstract_id=14835&conference_id=15
It actually shows has example code for catching S0C7 - if that is your
real
concern
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
<sugandhi.b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1178723840.883581.74750@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> each of the programs i am working on are 1000 lines of assembler
> code..they are not small manageable units but huge driver programs. if
> i put in LE macros like CEEEntry & CEETERM in there, it might conflict
> with some other register usage already in programs. it will ask for
> lot of analysis if i made my assembler code LE conforming. hence i am
> trying to make it LE tolerable. Can you suggest an Error handling
> service in Z/OS 1.6 that intercepts / catches SOC7 abends and is LE
> Compatible ?? and which i can use in place of SPIE macros ?
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sugandhi
>
> On May 8, 10:34 am, Binyamin Dissen <postin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2007 05:54:55 -0700 sugandh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>> :>I am working on Language environment migration of Assembler code. I
>> :>have set the TRAP off for now. I have not made Assembler code LE
>> :>conforming. My question is how can i use ESPIE macros in non-LE
>> :>Conforming assembler code which is executing in LE Environment ? I
>> :>dont prefer to use LE Error handling CEE macros because otherwise i
>> :>have to convert and make my code LE-Conforming Assembler.
>>
>> I presume so, but if you do not retry to the point of the interruption
I
>> would
>> expect that the LE data will be in an inconsistent state.
>>
>> It isn't that big a deal to make the code LE conforming.
>>
>> --
>> Binyamin Dissen
<bdis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.dissensoftware.com
>>
>> Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
>>
>> Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
>> you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
>>
>> I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
>> especially those from irresponsible companies.
>
>
|
