The problem with using LE programs in exits is the environment in which the exits run. Many run in cross-memory and/or SRB mode so SVCs are not allowed and LE functions use SVCs instead of instructions in many cases (i.e., the date and time routines).
Lloyd >________________________________ > From: Scott Ford <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 1:33 PM >Subject: Re: Exit interfaces and module attributes (was: Base-less ...) > > >Gil, > >I appreciate what you said. In the perfect world ( wasn't that a Blondie >song), the API calls, linkage between languages would be well documented and >extensive samples. But life and code and development sometimes are messy, so >experimentation is necessary. I ask questions, because like many of my >colleagues I don't have all the answers, especially when I looking at a new >design or concept. Times have changed no more PLMs or source to look at ...so >here we are... > >Scott ford >www.identityforge.com >from my IPAD > >'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' > > >> On Dec 6, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This thread seems to nave diverged into ASSEMBLER-LIST and >> IBM-MAIN. I'm extending the topic. A contributor said in >> ASSEMBLER LIST: >> >> ... I am trying to decide to convert it to baseless or write an >> assembler stub and redo the exit in C. >> >> In a perfect universe, a stub would be needless. >> >> About 40 years ago, before I had any OS/360 exposure, an Expert >> boasted to me that the calling conventions of OS were absolutely >> homogeneous -- a subroutine in any language could be called from >> any other language, or as a main program alike. (I was skeptical -- >> I asked, "LISP? SNOBOL4?" My mentor replied, "Of course!") >> >> What have we lost? >> >> With XA, the facility was mostly preserved: CSECTs were marked >> AMODE 24 or AMODE 31; would be entered in the correct AMODE, >> and would return to a caller in the caller's mode via BSM. >> >> So, daydream/wishlist item: It should be made possible to mark >> a load module as LE-mode so ATTACH or an EXIT interface would >> seamlessly enter an exit written in LE C (not just Metal C) and the >> exit return smoothly. >> >> Would Metal C remove the need for an Assembler stub? >> >> -- gil >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
