Thanks.
This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce
"classic" load modules,
while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.
With C++ (I guess), this is due to the fact that (writable) static data
can be initialized not only by
static initializers (which could be implemented by CSECT formatting),
but by function calls, which
needs init functions called after program load or task creation. So with
C++, the requirement
for program objects is driven by the language definition. But I'm not
sure about this.
For COBOL, it is kind of strange, and as I understood, it is only driven
by some sort of
debugging option which only can be handled by program objects.
The PL/1 compiler group, FWIW, stated that they don't plan to require
program objects
in the near future.
By the way: NORENT C can produce load modules, too. We still use NORENT
C generating
load modules (without the compiler options RENT, DLL, LONGNAME). I hope
that this will
be supported in the future, too ... and that "normal load modules" won't
go away soon
(I don't think it will be possible).
It would by interesting, again, what PL/X does. Maybe the new fancy
stuff is only
for the customers :-)
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 06.04.2023 um 00:26 schrieb Attila Fogarasi:
Originally SCEERUN2 contained LE modules that had to be PDS/E while SCEERUN
could be PDS. Also for PL/I and Fortran only SCEERUN is needed; Cobol and
C/C++ needs SCEERUN2 as well as SCEERUN. Finally some of the SCEERUN2
modules had naming conflicts with very old pre-LE runtimes, while SCEERUN
modules did not.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:59 AM Frank Swarbrick <frank.swarbr...@outlook.com>
wrote:
What is the major difference between the SCEERUN and SCEERUN2 libraries?
Is RUN2 for XPLINK and RUN for non-XPLINK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
