On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 17:26:04 UTC, Barry Lichtenstein wrote: > It's not the JCL per-se. The combination of XOBJ object modules and the > Prelinker was a tactical solution to advancements in programs, originally > created for C programs. XOBJ object modules addressed several deficiencies > in OBJ object modules, such the ability to have long case-sensitive external > symbol names. > > While it does the intended job, the Prelinker has several drawbacks, such as > the inability to incrementally rebind a module so created (read "csect > replacement"). The prelinker does not handle GOFF object modules such as > produced by C/C++ with XPLINK and COBOL V5. GOFF object modules can define > characteristics of a program which cannot be represented in a load module. > > Note that the binder has been producing program objects for over 25 years. It > is difficult to make significant enhancements to OBJ object module and load > module formats. Some important things have been added such as AMODE 64 and > quad-word alignment. > > [email protected] >
Sorry, I was still being unclear. What I meant is that if you run JCL which uses a PDSE as output for executable programs, then you are using a PDSE. If you run JCL that uses a PDS, then you are using a PDS. Using a PDSE in the JCL to compile a PL/I program does not mean that PL/I can only produce code requiring Program Objects, which was that little side-track in the discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
