I'm wondering if the following is a good idea. I've been reading again. If I
have a routine which does the following:
...
CALL MYSUB,(PARMS,...),VL
L R13,4(,R13)
RETURN (14,12),T,RC=(15)
and I'm using standard calling conventions and save areas, is there any
I'm wondering if the following is a good idea. I've been reading again. If I
have a routine which does the following:
...
CALL MYSUB,(PARMS,...),VL
L R13,4(,R13)
RETURN (14,12),T,RC=(15)
and I'm using standard calling conventions and save areas, is
Bad idea if MYSUB abends. You've effectively lost the evidence that would have been in the back chain. Also, if you're in an LE environment, you have the danger that something your program is passing will be walked on by MYSUB, because you are now giving MYSUB your program's DSA to do with as he
One questions how there would be addressability to either the VCON or the
parms.
You're right of course. I wasn't bothering with the details. If it were me and
I wanted to do it this way, I'd get the parmlist address (R1) and branch
address (R15) set up inline and then restore R2-R14 and
On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:57, McKown, John wrote:
...
LR13,4(,R13)
LM R14,R12,12(R13)
CALL MYSUB,(PARAMS,...),LINKOP='15,15',LINKINST=BCR,VL
The above call replaces the normal BALR 14,15 with BCR 15,15 and so goes to
MYSUB, but removes the current program
