> 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.
> David de Jongh Almost all the assembler code I write is ‘just’ application code (as opposed to system exits, PC routines or whatever). It’s used in applications written in COBOL or PL/I. All of the assembler code is LE compliant (the LE entry and exit macros are used and R12 is reserved for the CAA) and I think this is actually an advantage: the entry and exit macros are very fast especially compared to alternatives where you must allocate a save area in every invocation. We also use LE heap storage whenever we need dynamic storage in the application. Fine as long as you don’t need to do special things like sharing memory between (instances of) applications and much faster than the STORAGE functions. I don’t understand the reluctance towards LE in this particular scenario… Fred! ----------------------------------------------------------------- ATTENTION: The information in this electronic mail message is private and confidential, and only intended for the addressee. Should you receive this message by mistake, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or use of this message is strictly prohibited. Please inform the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or opening it. Messages and attachments are scanned for all viruses known. If this message contains password-protected attachments, the files have NOT been scanned for viruses by the ING mail domain. Always scan attachments before opening them. -----------------------------------------------------------------
