And then you have C / C++ that uses RC=1 as the good return code. Any other is bad.
Lloyd ----- Original Message ---- From: Gerhard Postpischil <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, May 8, 2013 2:41:51 PM Subject: Re: Return codes On 5/8/2013 2:14 PM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: > Another possible reason is - same return codes standards are also > used for macros (system services) and system exits. So one set of > convention is used to pass info including RC from one module to > another. While I prefer the branch table conjecture, I have a number of programs that use a three-way branch (e.g., CH R15,=H'8') to save, what in the good old days was expensive storage. As for range checking, my all-time favorite is CL (e.g., CL R15,=F'16' / BH) that catches both negative and excessive values. IBM has complicated matters, starting with BPAM macros, by adding more return codes. I would have preferred the old 0,4,8,12 paradigm, with R0 set to a reason code. Gerhard Postpischil Bradford, Vermont ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
