On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wow, is this all confusing. (And yes, I imagine maintaining the source -- > two sources, assembler and PL/S, right? -- for GETMAIN is even more > confusing.) > > So STORAGE is just GETMAIN in disguise. I knew it provided the same sort of > functionality, but with notes here and there seeming to encourage the use > of > STORAGE instead, I thought it was somehow fundamentally "better." well "kind of better". It is more accurate to say that STORAGE (the PC version) and GETMAIN (the various SVC and branch-entry versions) end up going to the same place, albeit with different front-end logic along the way. STORAGE is (IMO) "better" than GETMAIN because it is easier to use and more tolerant of the caller's environmental conditions. But even though the stacking PC is much faster than the SVC FLISH/SLIH, STORAGE is actually slightly slower than GETMAIN because the STORAGE PC front-end does a lot more validation precisely because it IS more tolerant. If you're just writing plain old problem state code there's no advantage unless you are also running in AR mode (supported by STORAGE, but not by any of the forms of GETMAIN) However, if you're writing code that runs in the dark and scary places then STORAGE is a way better deal. -- This email might be from the artist formerly known as CC (or not) You be the judge. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
