Yea I know - it is late (last posting to this thread a month ago)
BUT I just found out
Without LE I (and anyone else) can write subroutines that work
identical if called from JCL or from another program (in VSE as
well as in MVS). All you have to do is make sure that a single
parm is
On Aug 11, 2011, at 05:26, Martin Trübner wrote:
Without LE I (and anyone else) can write subroutines that work
identical if called from JCL or from another program (in VSE as
well as in MVS). All you have to do is make sure that a single
parm is prefixed with an LL field.
This is no longer
On 8/11/2011 7:37 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 05:26, Martin Trübner wrote:
Without LE I (and anyone else) can write subroutines that work
identical if called from JCL or from another program (in VSE as
well as in MVS). All you have to do is make sure that a single
parm is
However, use of RSECT in a multiple CSECT assembly
allows a temporary override of NORENT
The multiple CSECT assembly case had not come to mind. I think, while
unwieldy, in many cases each such assembly could have its own *PROCESS
RENT/NORENT. I don't claim that's better, just that until the gripe
Paul's suggestion of LOCTR is how I solved the issue that hit me. I'd
forgotten about that when I wrote my earlier note.
I may have been absent from the list for a while, but long-timers
remember me as being particularly gripey. :)
On 2011-07-08 05:03, Peter Relson wrote:
However, use of
This doesn't really sound like a philosophy question, it sounds like a
need question. Do you need anything that LE can provide (be that functions
or the stack or something else, even something that just makes it easier
to code what you need to code)? If the answer is yes (or perhaps even
maybe to
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Ray Mullins
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:57 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: philosopy question: use LE HLASM?
Your points are certainly valid, Peter
On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:57, Ray Mullins wrote:
I've also seen issues in poorly-coded macros (not mine) where use of
SYSECT in CEESTART rather than the hard-coded CSECT would avoid conflicts.
I believe if one wants to restore the entry location counter it's
better/easier to use:
SYSLOC
I am looking into writing an HLASM program on z/OS which will use UNIX
System Services. Should I just bite the bullet and make my routine LE?
--
John McKown
Maranatha!
On 7/6/2011 6:14 AM, John McKown wrote:
I am looking into writing an HLASM program on z/OS which will use UNIX
System Services. Should I just bite the bullet and make my routine LE?
--
John McKown
Maranatha!
Well, I would, but perhaps that's just me.
Calling the various UNIX System Services
I'd say it depends which part of USS you are intending to use and if you
are intending linking to anything else.
99% of the services can be straight assembler with no need for the
aggravation of LE.
We use it for message queues, shared memory and sockets without any
problems.
My philosophy has been to not use LE, unless LE will be around due to
C/C++, COBOL, or PL/I being in the immediate vicinity. Also, there are
times where I've had to use something in LE (like Lilian dates from an
external source) that it handles nicely.
If you are just using USS, and C will not
12 matches
Mail list logo
