On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:59:17 -0800, Edward E. Jaffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did I hear (read) my name?? > IIRC, it was you who, a while back, advocated balancing SYSCALLS( ON ) with SYSCALLS( OFF ). Here, SAVE/RESTORE might be useful because there is no way of querying the state of SYSCALLS on entry. But Bill Schoen notes there are some harmful effects of SYSCALLS( OFF ) and recommends avoiding it entirely.
> There is a fundamental difference between ADDRESS in REXX and USING in > assembler. USING in HLASM is positional and applies at compile time > only. If you CALL a subroutine and return, your USINGs in effect at the And if the subroutine saves/restores the base register, everything works. > CALL point haven't changed. OTOH, ADDRESS in REXX is executable. It's > changed at run time via the instruction path. Seems like it ought to be > stackable. PUSH ADDRESS / CALL / POP ADDRESS. (Of course, in REXX PUSH > and POP are already taken. Maybe something like SAVE/RESTORE ala ISPF. > But you get the idea.) Or maybe subroutine linkage should > _automatically_ save/restore it. It happens already when invoking > another REXX procedure. Why not within a procedure? > Subroutine linkage "within a procedure"? I'm confused. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
