It seems perfectly clear to me that the OP was asking why in this particular example, it only produced RC=4, instead of the expected RC=8.
So far, no response seems to be relevant, other than the request for an example. sas On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 4:43 AM Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > Because it's an error, that's why. In the first line you tell the > assembler "X means this location." In the second line you tell the > assembler "X means THIS location." Well, which is it? The assembler is > telling you you're confused, and it's an error. > > Believe me, you do not want the opposite behavior. In a time long ago and > far away I used an assembler (IV Phase, if you must know) that did exactly > that, treating a duplicated symbol silently as a redefinition. (It also > treated undefined symbols as EXTRNs, kicking the can down the road to the > linker.) It was Hell! Trust me, you do NOT want that behavior. You do NOT > want to spend four hours debugging "why when I branch to X does it not go > where I want it to?" > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] > On Behalf Of João Reginato > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 7:28 PM > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: RES: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol > Importance: Low > > It´s very simple: > > X MVC A,B > X MVC B,A > > Where X is duplicated but never referenced > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: Steve Thompson <ste...@wkyr.net> > Enviada em: terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2024 23:11 > Para: jb.regin...@gmail.com; ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Assunto: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol > > I suggest you show us a snippet of code so we can see how you are > re-defining a variable/symbol. > > Steve Thompson > > On 4/30/2024 5:55 PM, João Reginato wrote: > > Hi > > > > > > > > The message “ASMA043E Previously defined Symbol” is always issued when an > > already defined field is redefined, even if it is not referenced, > > > > making the compiler end with error (return code 8). > > > > I see this situation as it was just a warning issue (with return code 4). > > > > Is there a reason for this behavior? > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > João > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
