On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:05:04 -0400, Peter Relson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I'd have actually said that there is nowhere known to IEWBLODI for the >deferred classes to be >loaded *to* (rather than *from*). It is LE that needs the instantiation of >the C_WSA deferred class. >And LE might need more than one of them, depending on the application. > >IBM would almost certainly decline to support deferred classes in these >services and would decline to provide an option like the one mentioned. > >But I share the question asked in one of the posts about a steplib. >Wouldn't it make more sense to have the test versions of these modules in >a different steplib, with the same module names and not do anything >strange at run-time? Is it not feasible to have the JCL accommodate this? > >Peter Relson >z/OS Core Technology Design > I've been assigned to investigate why a client's home-written debugging monitor that was last modified in the nineties, lacking adequate documentation, and using absolute decimal self-defining terms rather than symbols, started failing when the shop moved to Ent. COBOL V5 for z/OS, from Ent. COBOL V4.2. It turned that the monitor calls IEWBLODI for an in-code re-bind of temp- -named production subroutines and presents them to Contents supervisor in their real names, so that main programs will not need to be changed. I thought maybe there is some compile option that will suppress creation of deferred data classes. I will have to work around this call for IEWBLODI. Thank you. Where can I read about WSOPT/NOWSOPT? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
