That might work in a small program, but in a large program there may be many places with similar context. BTDT,GTS.
You want a bad compiler listing? I once had the misfortune to use a C compiler that caused me to have fits in which I screamed "I want Lattice!" Error messages had sequence numbers that were several hundred lines off from where the errors actually were. I could usually find the error by saving the preprocessor output, compiling that, and then matching the code in error against the source. Oh, and did I mention the critical bug that was fixed only in the release that didn't support the compact memory model, when the compact memory model was the only reason we selected that misbegotten compiler. A real gem. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> on behalf of John McKown <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Any real need for sequence numbers in 73-80 any more? On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: > Sequence numbers are useful even if you've never even seen a picture of a > Hollerith card. They are convenient for editing, and assembler error > messages with sequence numbers make it much easier to fix errors. > Hum, I just look at the listing and do a find on ASMA to see the errors "in context". I will say that I really like IBM's approach to generating listings and errors. I use the GCC compiler on Linux and sometimes it is a royal PITA to figure out that the <elided> the error message is talking about. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. Maranatha! <>< John McKown
