> Aren't some z/OS control blocks distributed bilingual, HLASM and PL/X?
Did you mean "so might the utility use or have used HLASM input rather than PL/X?" I suppose it might have, but Mr. Relson did not write it that way, and HLASM is inferior to PL/X for this purpose because it is less strongly typed or perhaps its types do not match up to C as well as PL/X's do. I think the use of PL/X for input is one of the reasons that the Relson utility (I never heard a program name) produces C structs that are much superior to those from EDCDSECT. > Agree with Lionel's recommendation. That should have been "agree with Gord's recommendation." Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 12:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Convert a Metal C control block mapping to Assembler DSECT ? I suspect they would not take an APAR (although of course it turns out I do not actually speak for IBM). I suspect they would cite compatibility concerns if they changed it. Yeah, yeah, I know, could be controlled by an option. I don't think EDCDSECT is IBM's highest priority. Yes, many control blocks are bilingual. So what? (Not trying to be rude; just mean ... so what?) PL/X is in any event a better starting point for C than is HLASM. Or am I missing your point? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
