My impression is that each group decides on its own what compiler options to use.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Michael Stein [m...@zlvfc.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 8:21 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Convert a Metal C control block mapping to Assembler DSECT ? On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 09:30:19PM +0000, Wayne Driscoll wrote: > To be fair, while the PL/X source is retained in comments to the > assembler, those macros are generated in way that allows them to be used > in both assemblies and PL/X compiles. Is it really true that *all* the PL/X source is retained as comments in the assembler source listing? If so this is a change, as back decades ago I was asked if the PL/X (PL/AS?) source was really needed and everyone (including me) assumed it wss included in the assembler listing. Just in case I did a compare and found that PL/X? source comments at the beginning of the module were dropped. Not good when they had the description of what the module did and how it did it. Also beware that the PL/S? compiler spec(?) may not include outputing the PL/S source as comments -- it could be changed by the PL/S compiler group at any time, not the component you're looking at... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
