On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:44:43 -0500, John Gilmore wrote: >I take your point, and I of course believe you when you say that you >meant what you wrote (ands tghat you object to my faulty paraphrase).
Paraphrase? Perhaps there is some meaning of the word with which I am not familiar. Peter's point that a module to be loaded above the bar "better not have any 4-byte relocatable adcon's" was an important one. The meaning of that caution is not in any way contained in your "better be AMODE(64)". >AMODE(64) seems to me to be the only appreopiate way to mark an >object that is to be resident above the bar, and in particular, one >that while refreshable contains metadata, relocatable doubleword >pointers to locations within itself. > >IBM has an understandably long history of omitting to enforce some >eminently reasonable constraint until that point in time at which it >judges it appropriate to do so; and marking an object, even a >read-only one, that is destined to reside above the bar as AMODE(31) >is, I think, an act of hubris. Perhaps. The fear that there might be a problem some day trying to load a non-executable module above the bar if it is not marked AMODE(64) may or may not be justified. I suspect not. Of course, if the tables are generated by macros that use SYSSTATE decide whether to create fullword or doubleword adcons, then the desire to specify AMODE(64) is understandable. I disagree that it is reasonable to distort Peter's caution the way that you did. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
