This thread seems to nave diverged into ASSEMBLER-LIST and
IBM-MAIN. I'm extending the topic. A contributor said in
ASSEMBLER LIST:
... I am trying to decide to convert it to baseless or write an
assembler stub and redo the exit in C.
In a perfect universe, a stub would be needless.
Gil,
I appreciate what you said. In the perfect world ( wasn't that a Blondie song),
the API calls, linkage between languages would be well documented and extensive
samples. But life and code and development sometimes are messy, so
experimentation is necessary. I ask questions, because like
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.comwrote:
This thread seems to nave diverged into ASSEMBLER-LIST and
IBM-MAIN. I'm extending the topic. A contributor said in
ASSEMBLER LIST:
... I am trying to decide to convert it to baseless or write an
assembler
From: Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Exit interfaces and module attributes (was: Base-less ...)
Gil,
I appreciate what you said. In the perfect world ( wasn't that a Blondie
song), the API calls, linkage
On 6 December 2013 13:22, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
Would Metal C remove the need for an Assembler stub?
In this case, probably. But Metal C is not a general substitute for
assembler language, even though you can have inline assembler
statements. Notably, the compiler has
In 3143369843874551.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
12/06/2013
at 12:22 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
About 40 years ago, before I had any OS/360 exposure, an Expert
boasted to me that the calling conventions of OS were absolutely
homogeneous -- a subroutine in any
