Of course the question as posed is not so much "which is right _asm or
__asm" but why did it work with z/OS 1.9 and now fails with z/OS 1.11.
Perhaps the OP could share a snippet of the source and listing showing the
same source when compiled with z/OS 1.9.
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Desig
I will beout of the office on 10/30 and 10/31, returning on 11/01. If you need
immediate assistance, Please contact the Help Desk. Thank You...Guy Gates
On 10/28/2012 9:46 PM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 10/27/2012 10:01 AM, Johnny Luo wrote:
#include
#include
void main()
{
_asm(" here we are " );
}
Shouldn't it be __asm instead of _asm?
A test conducted under z/OS 1.13 shows that _asm is an external function whereas
__asm inserts the
Or, maybe,
#define _asm __asm
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 08:03 -0700, Jon Perryman wrote:
> Good point. Other C compilers accept a single underscore, so I assumed IBM C
> did
> too. If it doesn't, then Johnny will need to look for a function or macro that
> is coded for the _ASM().
>
> Regards, Jon
>
> Any hint?
>
Try Dignus Systems/C instead... :-)
- Dave R. -
--
riv...@dignus.comWork: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
Good point. Other C compilers accept a single underscore, so I assumed IBM C did
too. If it doesn't, then Johnny will need to look for a function or macro that
is coded for the _ASM().
Regards, Jon Perryman.
From: Edward Jaffe
On 10/27/2012 10:01 AM, Johnny Lu
On 10/27/2012 10:01 AM, Johnny Luo wrote:
#include
#include
void main()
{
_asm(" here we are " );
}
Shouldn't it be __asm instead of _asm?
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.c
_____
From: Johnny Luo
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Sent: Sat, October 27, 2012 10:01:35 AM
Subject: Weird Metal C problem
Hi, List,
After upgrading from z/OS 1.9 to z/OS 1.11, all our metal c programs just
won't pass the compilation process.
Take a simple test program for
