Peter, thank you for your interest and help.
Below my attempt to answer to your questions.
I hope this helps,
mario
On 11/23/21 2:19 PM, Peter Relson wrote:
Mario,
Did you ever try yours but returning the value in functRC (an output from
the __asm) rather than 0, just to bound the problem?
Yes, I did: Returning functRC causes the compiler to emit the __asm code.
How much does the compiler attempt to figure out what the __asm is trying
to do (besides just manipulating the instructions based on the "symbols"?
I don't know the answer. As far as I can see the assembler code is not
manipulated at all.
It seems to me that the compiler only decides to generate it or not
basing on its analysis the c code.
And what is the "default" with respect to getting the compiler to honor
what was coded (and how do you override that default if that default is
not right for the case in hand)?
I tried using all the default compiling options, only adding: ASM
(required to use the __asm statement), LIST (required to get the pseudo
assembler list), OPT(3) and the result is the same.
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
Thank you.
