We had a MACLIB that contained ENDREQ,GET, ESTAEX, IDACB2, PUT all of
which had L or ST instructions with an index and no base register which
caused the assembly warning message. We didn't want to disable the
warning because we wanted to catch our own errors. Just a cursory check
indicates the GET still has a "L 15,24(1)".
It also contained CICS macro DFHRMCAL that generated a CSECT statement
instead of saving and using &SYSSTYP. We were using this macro in RSECTs.
So it wasn't all about reentrant code; but it was about a lead
programmer who wanted all assemblies to end with no errors with all
warnings flags set, especially for less experienced programmers.
This discussion has reminded me to check whether we still need these
overrides.
On 2021-01-19 9:47 a.m., Peter Relson wrote:
Gary W wrote:
I recall we had to do it to produce reentrant code with some IBM macros
about 20 years ago.
If you happen to remember, I would be interested in learning of that
example/experience.
To all:
Bringing up issues with respect to macros that require codereg
addressability on the forum provides for interesting discussion but is not
in general productive.
Please consider helping yourself and others by opening an RFE. I think the
team might consider making such updates, but might not do so without an
RFE to which the work can be correlated.
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
Gary Weinhold
Senior Application Architect
DATAKINETICS | Data Performance & Optimization
Phone:+1.613.523.5500 x216
Email: [email protected]
Visit us online at www.DKL.com
E-mail Notification: The information contained in this email and any
attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other
intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you
notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your
mail system.
