Fish wrote:

> Hercules should not be in the business of reporting program
> checks.
>>>Why not? What is your reasoning?

Hercules is a hardware emulator, not an operating system. According to the architecture, hardware's responsibility?is to store ILC and interrupt code, and swap psws. Operating system would do the rest and if necessary produce any messages.?

You don't see any program check messages on the z15 or zPDT consoles (or any other real hardware).?

> It should only report on a disabled wait condition, which

> it does.
>>>Again, why?

In my days when the hardware loaded a disabled wait, an alarm went off in the machine room to notify the operators that the system went down. Nowadays I hear the status goes red on your HMC connected web browser. So, reporting on a disabled wait is always a good?idea.

> OSTAILOR is a useless option and should default to QUIET.
>>>Why?

Again, back to this being an OS responsibility. Most operating systems display interrupt information or provide exits?to let the?application?handle the program check.? ?

Personally, I like to know who actually benefits from this feature ? It is never a good thing to see illegitimate program check messages from your OS on the console.

You are correct that if one were writing?an?OS this may come handy, But anyone who is doing this would know when you get an interrupt, the first thing you do is to save your registers and the old psw is already stored. So what is Hercules telling you that you don't know ?

Best regards,

??

? ?

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 6:09 PM Fish Fish <david.b.trout@...> wrote:

Aaron Finerman wrote:

> Hercules should not be in the business of reporting program
> checks.

Why not? What is your reasoning?


> It should only report on a disabled wait condition, which
> it does.

Again, why?


> OSTAILOR is a useless option and should default to QUIET.

Why?


> If an application program checks, the underlying OS produces
> the appropriate messages.

Not always, but yes, I'll concede the point.


> If an OS program checks, it either produces a dump, or loads
> a disabled wait with memory intact for problem determination
> or a standalone dump.

Usually, yes. I would agree.

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?

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.? :)