On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:05:04 -0400, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to