On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 21:53:35 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: >Many thanks for that ... I know of very large installations which >depend heavily on being able to modify RENT programs, and loading them >always into write protected storage would break their systems. > I recognize that the Subject: says RENT and I was among those who added REFR to the thread. Can we all now agree not to advocate write-protecting objects that are merely RENT? I will continue to argue for write-protecting REFR objects.
>In fact, I am talking of a very large customer of mine. >What they do: they load the EP point of called modules only at first call >and store the EP in the caller's static area. The logic how this can be >done has IMO been posted earlier in this thread (comparing the stored address >with zero, LOAD, if zero and use it, if non zero). > >My customer makes sure during development and testing that no other >modification of the load module occurs, apart from this "allowed" >reentrancy violation, as he calls it. > This is not a violation of IBM's (idiosyncratic?) use of re-entrant (RENT). >BTW: many years ago I suggested to get rid of this method (to store the EPA >in the caller's static CSECT), because this way, two different callers >of the same module would anyway do two LOADs. I suggested a load manager >instead, > ... Or set a flag in that static area (serialize if necessary) and bypass initialization if set. Remember and rerspect the distinction IBM makes between RENT and REFR. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
