Frank,
...being with IBM, I have some contacts that sometimes help me out.  I passed 
your question along to our COBOL compiler lab and they think you may have 
encountered a shortcoming in COBOL 6.3.  They recommended that you should call 
IBM support and open a case.
I hope this helps.....
Regards,
Mitch McCluhan
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Swarbrick <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, Aug 16, 2021 2:46 pm
Subject: Static CEEPCALL to COBOL 5/6

I have a very simple LE-enabled assembler program:
        SYSSTATE ARCHLVL=2              
CALLER  CEEENTRY MAIN=YES,RMODE=ANY      
        CEEPCALL COBTEST,MF=(E,)        
        CEETERM                          
PPA      CEEPPA  ,                      
        CEEDSA  ,                      
        CEECAA  ,                      
        END      CALLER                  

This works under the following conditions:
- COBTEST is a COBOL V6.3 DLL and is "DLL linked" with CALLER.
- COBTEST is a COBOL V4.2 non-DLL and is static linked with CALLER.

However, if COBTEST is a COBOL V6.3 non-DLL and is static linked with CALLER, 
it abends with an S0C1.
It appears that when a COBOL V6.3 program is static linked with an LE-assembler 
main program it's wiping our or not properly setting CEECAACRENT, the address 
of the writable static area.

Specifically, the CEEPCALL macro expansion has the following statement:
L    15,500(,12)                    LOAD 15 WITH CEECAACRENT  
When working properly, this loads R15 with a valid address.  But in the not 
working scenario it's loading address 0.

Should this be working?  Is this a bug?  Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks,
Frank

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to