One intriguing use of split format that I thought of would be an RMODE=24 data CSECT for DCB's and other CB's that must live below the line and RMODE=31 for the rest of your code. Avoids dynamic LOC=BELOW storage requests and moves from 31-bit constant areas to 24-bit data areas without sacrificing instruction CSECT reentrancy.
WRT LE and when to use it, I used to be in the camp that said "no LE unless absolutely required". Now I am more neutral about it, and will always use it for any non-trivial code invoked from an HLL or mainline code intended to call HLL subroutines. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Mullins > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: philosopy question: use LE & HLASM? > > Your points are certainly valid, Peter. However, use of RSECT in a > multiple CSECT assembly allows a temporary override of NORENT, plus it's > one less line (piddling, I know). I've never actually done a mixed > CSECT/RSECT assembly, but I'm sure someone has...and with some of the > new PM3 and 4 split formats, could be theoretically exploited. (Again, > don't ask me why, I have no immediate idea.) > > In addition, unless something has changed recently, *PROCESS RENT can't > be generated from inside a macro, but RSECT can. > > I've also seen issues in poorly-coded macros (not mine) where use of > &SYSECT in CEESTART rather than the hard-coded CSECT would avoid > conflicts. -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
