while searching about the abend SOC4, i found
Movingdata to a zero address or to an address less than 512 (decimal) is a very frequent cause of this abend.
Can anyone tell me what does 512(decimal) means here?
doubt for SOC4 abend
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:19 pm
- Skillset: JCL
CICS
DB2
PLI - Referer: website
-
- Global moderator
- Posts: 3025
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:13 am
- Skillset: JCL, PL/1, Rexx, Utilities and to a lesser extent (i.e. I have programmed using them) COBOL,DB2,IMS
- Referer: Google
- Location: Pushing up the daisies (almost)
Re: doubt for SOC4 abend
Exactly what it says - an address less than 512. Such a low address is reserved by/for the operating system
The problem I have is that people can explain things quickly but I can only comprehend slowly.
Regards
Nic
Regards
Nic
-
- Global moderator
- Posts: 3006
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:25 pm
- Skillset: tso,rexx,assembler,pl/i,storage,mvs,os/390,z/os,
- Referer: www.ibmmainframes.com
Re: doubt for SOC4 abend
see here for the details of hardware architecture
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.w ... c500428f9a
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.w ... c500428f9a
cheers
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
enrico
When I tell somebody to RTFM or STFW I usually have the page open in another tab/window of my browser,
so that I am sure that the information requested can be reached with a very small effort
- dick scherrer
- Global moderator
- Posts: 6268
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:58 am
Re: doubt for SOC4 abend
Hello,
It means the code has attempted to move data to an address that is not valid to move to by the code.
As said above, a memory address below 512.Can anyone tell me what does 512(decimal) means here?
It means the code has attempted to move data to an address that is not valid to move to by the code.
Hope this helps,
d.sch.
d.sch.
-
- Global moderator
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:02 am
- Skillset: Easytrieve Plus, Cobol, Utilities, that sort of stuff
- Referer: Google
Re: doubt for SOC4 abend
priyasingh,
Can you post where you got that from, please? I've seen a good few S0C4's in my time (caused by program code, rather that doing dumb things with a file which, to be honest, I've never looked at the address of), but other than a zero address, I've never seen one that bore any relationship to and address of "512" or lower and non-zero. Although easy to get a zero address in Cobol, getting an address of 1-512 would be much more tricky, except doing it deliberately.
S0C4 is from accessing storage that in some way you don't have "permission" to address - it is not "your storage" according to the OS (and there is no arguing with it).
Can you post where you got that from, please? I've seen a good few S0C4's in my time (caused by program code, rather that doing dumb things with a file which, to be honest, I've never looked at the address of), but other than a zero address, I've never seen one that bore any relationship to and address of "512" or lower and non-zero. Although easy to get a zero address in Cobol, getting an address of 1-512 would be much more tricky, except doing it deliberately.
S0C4 is from accessing storage that in some way you don't have "permission" to address - it is not "your storage" according to the OS (and there is no arguing with it).
-
- Global moderator
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:02 am
- Skillset: Easytrieve Plus, Cobol, Utilities, that sort of stuff
- Referer: Google
Re: doubt for SOC4 abend
So, it is something according to Chicago Soft's Quik-Ref product.
The 512 is like this: X'0000FF' or X'000000FF' through X'000000' or X'00000000'.
The zero address is easy to create (try to use something which has not had an address established). The X'01'-X'FF' would be difficult to get by accident in Cobol.
The 512 is like this: X'0000FF' or X'000000FF' through X'000000' or X'00000000'.
The zero address is easy to create (try to use something which has not had an address established). The X'01'-X'FF' would be difficult to get by accident in Cobol.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0
- 954
-
by jcdm
View the latest post
Fri Jul 21, 2023 12:18 pm
-
-
Doubt about run Java into IMS and scheduling steps
by jcdm » Wed Nov 22, 2023 6:32 pm » in IMS DB/DC - 1
- 3570
-
by sergeyken
View the latest post
Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:24 pm
-
-
- 0
- 2116
-
by MainframeCoder
View the latest post
Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:13 am
-
- 0
- 1788
-
by bwissink
View the latest post
Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:04 pm
-
- 3
- 1781
-
by Blackthorn
View the latest post
Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:34 pm