The binder will simply discard the "private code" (unnamed) CSECT (section), if it has text. It never gets incorporated into the module being bound, so it should have no effect on it. Binder has behaved like this since near the beginning (early 90's, around when PM3 format was introduced).
The difference between the AMODEs is described in 'SYS1.MACLIB(IEWBCES)', which shows that X'00' is Unspecified while X'01' is explicitly AMODE=24. I believe this is from the days before there were AMODEs and RMODEs, perhaps some concern that Unspecified would have to be treated specially, though I'm not aware that it ever is. The treatment of AMODE & RMODE by the binder is described in the Program Management User's Guide and Reference in the Chapter "Creating programs from source modules", section "Addressing and Residence modes". As well of course under their respective options. Careful looking at the description of "Linkage Editor" processing, which is specifically talking about the very old linkage editor, which you'd only get with a few names such as HEWLKED. That's not the binder, it's talking about some of the usually not problematic differences. (Most everything uses the binder. SMP/E always uses the binder, never the linkage editor.) On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:57:07 -0500 Thomas David Rivers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I could find nothing in the "Program Management: Advanced Facilities" > > doc that indicated an AMODE flag value of B'00' is any different/special > > verses B'01' (it is surprising that there are 2 AMODE 24 options there.) > > I _did_ find a parenthentical comment in the book "z/OS MVS Programming: > Assembler Services Guide", in the section titled "Linkage editor > and binder support of AMODE and RMODE", in the sub-section of > "Linkage editor RMODE processing". It says: > > The linkage editor determines the RMODE of each CSECT. If the RMODEs > are all the same, the linkage editor assigns that RMODE to the load > module. > If the RMODEs are not the same (ignoring the RMODE specification on > common > sections), the more restrictive value, RMODE 24, is chosen as the > load module's RMODE. > > > So - it seems any RMODE specification on a common section (empty or not, > I suppose) > is ignored. > > I didn't (yet) find a similar statement about AMODE... > > Just wanted to leave this here for the future. > > - Dave R. - > > -- > [email protected] Work: (919) 676-0847 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
