Re: Do I have a looping issue?
|
If OSTAILOR was meant to help in OS development (which I agree it could come handy) it would be perfected by addition of? EXT+?SVC+?PGM+?MCH+?commands to allow for tracing of all or selective codes. Best regards,?
On Fri, 2022-10-28 at 15:09 -0700, Fish Fish wrote:
> Aaron Finerman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > OSTAILOR is a useless option and should default to QUIET.
From the purpose of someone who only runs a mature operating system, I
can understand this perspective.? However,...
>
>
> But why can't Hercules issue a message as well? I mean, I can
> certainly envision a situation where a programmer might be writing
> code that has some type of program interrupt interception/handling
> routine (STXIT I believe it's called? I'm not an MVS person!) to deal
> with, say, a page fault or a data exception or even an operation
> exception, but which is incorrectly coded to not expect a protection
> exception.
>
> Then too there is the case of stand-alone programs or a someone
> writing (developing) their own operating system too, and would
> appreciate being informed whenever something "unexpected" happens.
> Have you considered that?
Absolutely agree 100%!? I am aware of activities by individuals in all
of these areas.? And can well understand when Hercules was being
debugged, the usefulness of seeing all program interruptions until
Hercules itself was reasonably well debugged. And then the "tailoring"
made sense.
>
> OSTAILOR support (with its current default(*)) has been a part of
> Hercules ever since version 1.61 release back in May 2000. And for
> good reason IMO: it helps keep the Hercules user (which in most all
> cases (but admittedly not necessarily every case) is a single
> user/person) informed about the internal goings on inside that
> amazing virtual mainframe sitting on their desk and running the
> operating system and software of their choosing.
>
> I'm seriously doubting our current OSTAILOR handling is *ever* going
> to change in that regard.
>
> HOWEVER...
>
> Having said that, what I *can* envision is *maybe* (*possibly*)
> adding a *new* OSTAILOR setting specifically designed for MVS 3.8j. A
> new "OSTAILOR MVS38J" perhaps. Or maybe just "OSTAILOR MVS". Or maybe
> "MVSNOPROT" or something. THAT I think might have a better chance of
> being accepted by the other developers and the rest of the community.
>
> But defaulting OSTAILOR to QUIET? Nope. Ain't gonna ever happen.
> (That's a prediction by the way, not a promise.)
>
>
> > Just my 2 cents.
>
> Mine too.? :)
>
|
