IBM/SMPE is quite meticulous about supplying all necessary binder control statements via JCLIN. Any omission leads to a PE and concomitant HOLD data. I don't think there's an inherent problem with multiple entry points as long as a binder control statement specifies the one to use. The ancient problem I recited occurred because no usable entry point was specified in the absence of concurrent compile.
. . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 5:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: SMP/E and Isolating a CSECT within a load module *** EXTERNAL EMAIL - Use caution when opening links or attachments *** <snip> How does this play with SMP/E service which regularly scrambles CSECTs and doesn't AFAIK generate INCLUDE -ATTR? Would the programmer more safely code in //SYSLIN either: ENTRY whatever or ORDER whatever ??? </snip> I'd like to think we provide ENTRY statements and/or ORDER statements in all cases where it is important to do so (which tends to be any multi-CSECT load module / program object). Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
