> On Aug 29, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hmmm. To me, that strategy seems appropriate for a report program ("this > field is not relevant to this type of transaction so print blanks or > asterisks") but not for a dump program. Isn't a dump -- consider the name -- > supposed to be "here it all is, as it all is, you figure out what is > relevant"? > > Is not the contents of an "irrelevant" register save area sometimes the very > clue you need? "Look at that -- it looks like part of one of my error > diagnostics -- I must be overlaying storage with the message" or "look, R2 > is pointing to my widget table. I must have come through the widget lookup > routine after all." > > I know, my comment is fundamentally irrelevant. LE's dump program works the > way it works, and they are not going to change it because of a comment on > IBM-MAIN, at least not in time to help @Janet. > > Charles
Charles: Try a SHARE requirement. LE (as usual IMO) is being arrogant , They really need to be slapped down a few notches. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
