On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:33:14 -0700, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:
>@Janet, I have no personal experience with this exact problem, but from what I >do know and what others have written here, if you wish to market a >C/C++-callable API-type product in object or assembler source code form, you >will have to at least consider shipping not two but THREE implementations: > >1. Non-XPLINK (31-bit) >2. XPLINK (31-bit) >3. XPLINK-64 > >Note I say "consider." You could possibly shortcut the above a little: > >- If the routine is not called frequently (an initialization routine, for >example) you could combine 1 and 2 above and use a #pragma to tell C/C++ what >you have done. It should not be called frequently because there is said to be >a significant performance penalty. >- You might be able to solve 3 with a bridge routine rather than a full API >implementation, depending on the characteristics of the function. The bridge >routine would have to set up the proper linkage including a save area below >the bar, copy any above-the-bar parameters below the bar, issue SAM31, and >call either 1 or 2. On return it would have to issue SAM64, unwind the >linkage, and return. You cannot call a 31-bit LE program (XPLINK or non-XPLINK) from XPLINK-64 unless you establish a new LE environment. I've never done it, but I think that it means establishing a new LE enclave and tearing it down when you are finished. You could potentially implement your API as a non-LE 31-bit program and include additional stub modules to call it. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
