Re: CBT Delinker
- From: greg.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Price)
- Date: 27 Feb 2006 17:47:11 -0800
Makes me wonder what sort of differences present.
Presumably various CSECT and entry point names match or
you would dismiss the modules as completely different immediately.
Same with CSECT sizes.
I can only think that the CSECT order is different in the two modules.
For programs with a "large" number of CSECTS it would be tiresome
to compare. If this is the problem then how about relinking with a
series or ORDER statements which nominate every CSECT?
Then the two different versions could be made to order the CSECTs
identically, and the link edit maps should be more easily compared.
Or perhaps there was another problem?
And you are also saying that a TXT record with no TXT should not be.
Makes sense to me. I'll pull the source and see if I can spot it.
(I haven't "seen" the author for years, but he's probably around
somewhere.)
Cheers,
Greg
gilmap@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
And now, I have the problem of validation. When I run two Binder
steps with inputs respectively the original load module and the
output of DELINKI (with empty TXT record removed), the load maps
are more different than I can readily reconcile. How might I
assure myself that I'm getting an equivalent load module?
Thanks,
gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Imminent phasing out of The (Mainframe) Trainer's Friend
- Next by Date: Re: Automating ISMF
- Previous by thread: CBT Delinker (was: SMP/E SE37 Retry and ++ZAP)
- Next by thread: JES2 OUTPUT priority
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
