I also think the bases were covered pretty well, especially when you consider compatibility expectations of the customer base in conjunction with feature, function, and architecture level changes that have taken place over the past 50+ years, including 31 and 64 bit addressing. If IBM could do it all over from the point of inception with foreknowledge of all future enhancements, I think the linkage conventions might look a bit different. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Register saving formats
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. I use the IBM guidelines and haven't had a problem. A called program that assumes it received a 72-byte save area does not corrupt the large save area, it just isn't "correct". But it causes no problem. I don't see your distinction between the save areas that provide space for the caller's high-halves and you picking somewhere else to put them. As far as I know, no diagnostic tool keeps up with the various z/OS linkage conventions. Certainly not SYSUDUMP. It might require AI to track back through various savearea formats, linkage stack, and LINKs, not to mention all the things that don't follow convention. It is messy, and the documentation is long (and boring) but IBM covered all the bases pretty well. sas
