The issue is completely different and conflicting architectures in our case. Its basis was written long before LE came along which somehow didn't help make it easier. In our case. Also maybe that we've had very little need for LE functions, I guess.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Steve Comstock Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Juni 2013 21:12 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: wish? for two new instructions. On 6/27/2013 12:55 PM, David P de Jongh wrote: > As we had been using the stack storage concept since the late 1970's, with a > suite of entry, exit, call and DSA macros, it was relatively easy to make all > of > our assembler programs LE-compliant for our 1998 release. For most assembler > programmers, however, the thought of LE seems akin to entering the den of the > basilisk. We can fix that: Using LE Services in z/OS - 3 days - includes coding LE-conforming assembler programs http://www.trainersfriend.com/Language_Environment_courses/m512descr.htm But, of course, it takes management direction to take that path. -Steve Comstock > David de Jongh > On 06/27/13, John Gilmore<[email protected]> wrote: > CC has made my point better than I did. > > For reasons that I have never really understood assembly-language > programmers almost always use heap storage for DSAs instead of the > stack storage they should use. (Their failure to use an extension of > such a stack-based DSA for scratch/automatic/local storage is a > little, but only a little, more excusable.) > > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA >
