I found an alternative, which is in fact what I wanted to do in the first place but could not figure how. With the defaults, if we specify the binder option REUS=RENT we get the IEW2609W warning, but the bind process succeeds, giving a return code of 4. However, I can specify LET=0 and this causes warnings to result in a return code of 12. I am sure this was obvious with anyone familiar with the program binder, but...
Using this option will, of course, indicate that the module was to be bound with an improper option (RENT=REUS) and one would change that and re-bind. Of course it's not just the IEW2609W warning that will cause the step to fail, but any warning. Hopefully we don't currently get any warnings that we want to consider successful. Frank >________________________________ > From: Frank Swarbrick <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 4:34 PM >Subject: Re: re-entrant modules and the binder > >Interesting. Looks like I can use COMPAT(LKED) and still create program >objects (both format 2 and format 3). I guess maybe it's that one simply >cannot explicitly request a PM level of higher than the program requires if >you specify COMPAT(LKED). But (apparently) it behaves like COMPAT(MIN) on >other respects; specifically that "the binder should select >the minimum PM level that supports the features actually in use for >the current bind". > >Does that make sense? >Frank > > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Frank Swarbrick <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 2:56 PM >>Subject: Re: re-entrant modules and the binder >> >>I hadn't noticed the issue with PDS load modules versus PDSE program >>objects. We currently are placing them in PDSs, but as we now use basic >>sysplex PDSE sharing we are going to soon want to convert to PDSE. I'm going >>to see what happens, just for my edification, but I believe you are right. >>Hmmm... This is not ideal. If you think of any good ideas please let me >>know! >>Thanks, >>Frank >> >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: John Gilmore <[email protected]> >>>To: [email protected] >>>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:42 PM >>>Subject: Re: re-entrant modules and the binder >>> >>>Frank, >>> >>>I take your point about the use of the binder option COMPAT(LKED). It >>>does ensure that no load module that contains a non-reentrant HLASM >>>module will be marked RENT. >>> >>>I am not, however, sure that COMPAT(LKED) is free of other disabilities. >>> >>>It ensures, for example, that target executables will be PDS-resident >>>load modules, not PDSE-resident program objects. >>> >>>It may preclude use of some LE facilities, for the use of which PM3 >>>must minimally be specified. (The manual text is not entirely clear: >>>we are abjured to avoid the notion that COMPAT is necessarily a lower >>>level than PM1; but it is silent about where PM3 fits into this >>>partial ordering.) >>> >>> >>>John Gilmore, Ashland MA, 01721 - USA >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>>send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >>> >>> >>> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> >> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
