On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:28:45 -0400, Dave Salt wrote:
>> Unless IBM has made changes recently, a compiled REXX program
>> retains all the source. This is used to run at installations
>> that don't license the compiler, but only the interpreter.
>>
>> Gerhard Postpischil
>
>That's true, but REXX can be compiled in such a way that the source isn't
>visible to anyone.
>
Compiled in such a way that it can't run at installations that don't
license the compiler? Or encrypted, where only the interpreter has the key?
If the latter, sooner or later someone will reverse-engineer it. But I'm
not a cryptographer.
Interesting, and possibly related behaviors:
Whether a tab ('05'x) character in the interpreted Rexx code causes
a syntax error or is treated as harmless whitespace depends on
whether the EXEC is loaded from SYSEXEC or SYSPROC. I forget
which direction. IIRC it was a rude surprise when I moved to
SYSEXEC an EXEC that I had been running for years from SYSPROC
with no problem and it abruptly failed.
And the behavior is further modulated by whether the EXEC contains
a SOURCELINE() function (but you can fool it with INTERPRET, but it's
not easy) I discovered that when trying to analyze the behavior.
There ought to be an APARable bug in here somewhere; either '05'x
is legal or it isn't; can't be both. WAD?
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
