In a recent note, Greg Price said: > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:46:59 +1100 > > 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. > Yah. Adding a couple hundred ORDER statements helps a lot. The residue of differences:
o There are a few externals defined with no associated ADCONs. DELINKI doesn't propagate these. It probably doesn't matter. o Order of defined LABELs in the M A P is unpredictable when the labels have identical offsets. Irritating. Binder ought to sort these for the map. o Offsets of Q-CONs don't match. I hope this doesn't matter, because there's nothing akin to ORDER to control the order of Q-CONs. But what about this? - CLASS B_PRV LENGTH = 7E0 ATTRIBUTES = MRG, NOLOAD + CLASS B_PRV LENGTH = 7C8 ATTRIBUTES = MRG, NOLOAD Might this be because of the unreferenced externals, a few of which are Q-CONs? Thanks again, 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
