Yep, I compared the assembler listings. The result was that there was no difference in code so that SPLEVEL SET=6 had no effect for this particular program. I wanted to get rid of this ancient setting. So I happily did set the SPLEVEL to 6.
-- Thanks, Manfred On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > SPLEVEL has not been changed since 1996. > > Some macros will expand differently based on SPLEVEL. > So I'd say that if you truly want to see if there is any effect, you > either need to do a lot of analysis (of macro invocations and expansions) > or, as you mention, compare the assembler and/or object code. > > There should be no "need" to have SPLEVEL=2 unless your exploitation > requires functions that existed prior to SPLEVEL=3 (MVS/ESA) that are > implemented differently as of SPLEVEL=3. > > Many macros rely on indicates set by SYSSTATE and if you specify SPLEVEL=2 > they will assume that you are compiling using a release that doesn't even > have the SYSSTATE macro. They will certainly assume ASC mode of Primary. > > SETLOCK is a macro that differentiates SPLEVEL < 4 from SPLEVEL >= 4. > CALLDISP differentiates SPLEVEL < 3 from SPLEVEL >= 3. > > Peter Relson > z/OS Core Technology Design > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
