Oppolzer - Informatik / Blog

We had 2.3 PL/1 modules in production use for a very long time (until 2006), and
we always linked them AMODE(31) / RMODE(ANY) - which in fact means RMODE(31).

The only exception IMO were modules that needed to be linked together with
AMODE(24) / RMODE (24) ASSEMBLER CSECTs - but that were some very rare
exceptions; old ASSEMBLER modules, which have not yet been migrated to
AMODE/RMODE 31, and some vendor software, which was only available in AMODE 24
versions at that time.

Kind regards

Bernd



Am 06.03.2012 19:09, schrieb J.G.:
> C.'s view is mine too.   Ass he suggests without quite saying, the combination
>
> AMODE(31)/RMODE(24)
>
> may well be/have been generated in certain unusual circumstances.  I
> suspect, however, 1) that the two procedures in question are instances
> of unwise tampering with compiler output and 2) that [re]specifying
>
> AMODE(31)/RMODE(31)
>
> would be unproblematic.  Worth noting is that their inclusion marked
> RMODE(24) in an executable has the disagreeable consequence of forcing
> it below the line.
>
> J.G.
>