On 23 February 2010 13:38, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > I kind of get pseudoregisters I think. The idea is that you can write a > bunch of disjoint DSECTs and the compilers and binder will essentially > assemble them all into one big area, and tell you at run time the total size > (in a CXD) and the offset of each DSECT (in a Q con) within the > conglomeration. Coding DXD F is kind of like coding a one-word DSECT -- not > wrong but not very efficient use of source code. > > I guess the fundamental question is this: will something outside of my code > give me that one task-unique word? I am beginning to think it will not. The > problem pseudo-registers seem to solve is " one GETMAIN for many DSECTs -- > even across separate compilation units" -- not "give me some task-unique > storage." I keep coming back to the same problem: there's no way anything > stored inside your code could possibly be reentrant-task-unique.
Right - the Binder (and its several deprecated friends) will not magically obtain your task-unique word. But LE will, and with C++ you are anyway running in an LE world. Check out the Anchor Support section, chapter 15 in, of all user-friendly places, the Language Environment Vendor Interfaces book. Lots of interesting stuff in there, much of which probably should be in the mainstream books. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
