Makes me wonder what sort of differences present. Presumably various CSECT and entry point names match or you would dismiss the modules as completely different immediately. Same with CSECT sizes.
I can only think that the CSECT order is different in the two modules. For programs with a "large" number of CSECTS it would be tiresome to compare. If this is the problem then how about relinking with a series or ORDER statements which nominate every CSECT? Then the two different versions could be made to order the CSECTs identically, and the link edit maps should be more easily compared. Or perhaps there was another problem? And you are also saying that a TXT record with no TXT should not be. Makes sense to me. I'll pull the source and see if I can spot it. (I haven't "seen" the author for years, but he's probably around somewhere.) Cheers, Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And now, I have the problem of validation. When I run two Binder > steps with inputs respectively the original load module and the > output of DELINKI (with empty TXT record removed), the load maps > are more different than I can readily reconcile. How might I > assure myself that I'm getting an equivalent load module? > > Thanks, > gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
