> Actually the most important for me is to *understand* the issue. As I tried to mention earlier, most likely there are unnamed sections contained in the load module in one case and not the other. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.1.0?topic=guide-binder-processing "Note: If you do not name all the sections and you try to rebind, the binder cannot replace private or unnamed sections. The result is a permanent accumulation of dead code and of duplicate functions."
I seem to recall these unnamed and/or private sections can be observed in the binder output with names of the form $PRIVxxxxx. Maybe also in AMBLIST output, I don't know. Its possible ++MODs in the FMID contained unnamed sections. When the FMID is applied by itself, those unnamed sections become part of the load module. When applying the FMID together with subsequent PTFs, the ++MODs are selected from the PTFs and not the FMID. Therefore, if the PTFs do not contain those unnamed sections, then the resulting load module would not contain those unnamed sections. I don't recall which of your scenarios resulted in the larger load module, but this, or some variation, might explain it. Kurt Quackenbush IBM | z/OS SMP/E and z/OSMF Software Management | [email protected] Chuck Norris never uses CHECK when he applies PTFs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
