I'm talking about the size field in the directory, not the size of the memory.
There's a reason that I wrote "but it's not for the faint of heart, and it might go wrong in ways that I haven't thought of" ;-) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of John Eells <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 3:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Comparing load modules Whether differently-sized modules are inequal cannot be determined from size alone when measured on disk (at least) for the reasons I posted earlier. The same is true of record-based, LOAD-based, and even Binder API-based binary compares. Comparing LOADed modules is also not reliable in the general case for somewhat different reasons that I mentioned in the same post. In addition to those reasons, it occured to me that different ordering can cause different amounts of storage to be consumed to maintain alignment boundaries (and the owner of the Binder confirms that). (This is *way* harder than it looks at first glance.) Seymour J Metz wrote: > Yes, but it's not for the faint of heart, and it might go wrong in ways that > I haven't thought of. If the two load modules are not of the same size, then > they're not equal. Otherwise, obtain a zeroed storage area (loadbuf) large > enough to hold one, and a second storage area (comparebuf) of the same size. > Do a directed load of the first, copy it, then load the second and compare. <snip> -- John Eells IBM Poughkeepsie [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
