> Conspicuous by its absence is the Program Object (PO) format. Yeah, we know that Program Object format is opaque, and users are supposed to only access through APIs, such as the Binder API.
My question is: Are there ISVs that are actually reading PO directly and parsing the data? (says while looking suspiciously at the PDS utility) -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> On Behalf Of Tony Harminc Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:37 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Provenance of XOBJECT? On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 11:05, Jonathan Scott <jonathan.scott...@gmail.com> wrote: > From what I remember, I think that HLASM used the option XOBJECT to > indicate GOFF output format (and used the term internally to distinguish > that format), but this term had sometimes also been used to refer to the > earlier extended object format used for C, which supported long names by > using the prelinker to reduce the output to standard OBJECT format. The > preferred name of the HLASM XOBJECT option was therefore changed to GOFF to > avoid confusion with that previous format, but of course the original > option name had to be retained for compatibility. > The Program Management: Advanced Facilities book (essentially the "how to use the Binder APIs" book) treats the three differently. It also describes the load module format in detail, seen as an input record to the Binder. Conspicuous by its absence is the Program Object (PO) format. Tony H.
