Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD

2008-02-07 Thread Edward Jaffe
Skip Robinson wrote: Busted. My bad. I offer this example instead. SAMPLIB contains assembler source. Right. And, it still creates a ++LMOD entry. :-( UCLIN can be used to set the RMID for both ++SAMP and ++PROGRAM to ensure no regression. But, when you do that, how do you put back the or

Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD

2008-02-07 Thread Skip Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU> Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD

Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD

2008-02-07 Thread Edward Jaffe
Skip Robinson wrote: The original question concerned a ++PROGRAM element, while this example is for an ordinary MOD/LMOD created directly from a SAMPLIB member. No need to store a copy separately. SMP/E assembles and links the sample program into LINKLIB in one APPLY step. The original quest

Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD

2008-02-07 Thread Skip Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD .EDU>

Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD

2008-02-07 Thread Schwarz, Barry A
built. -Original Message- From: Staffan Tylen [mailto:snip] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD Hi. I'm having a problem building a usermod that should replace an installed source, assemble it, and replace the existing

Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD

2008-02-07 Thread Edward Jaffe
Staffan Tylen wrote: Hi. I'm having a problem building a usermod that should replace an installed source, assemble it, and replace the existing load module. The source was during product installation defined as ++SAMP(name) and the load module as ++PROGRAM(name). This type of packaging implies

SMP/E ++PROGRAM vs ++LMOD

2008-02-07 Thread Staffan Tylen
Hi. I'm having a problem building a usermod that should replace an installed source, assemble it, and replace the existing load module. The source was during product installation defined as ++SAMP(name) and the load module as ++PROGRAM(name). My question is if there is a way to have the usermod rep

Re: SMP/E ++PROGRAM

2007-02-26 Thread Kurt Quackenbush
I believe that COPYMOD can convert load modules into program elements and vice-versa, so the original format shouldn't matter. Is this correct? All load modules can reside in a PDSE, but not all program objects can reside in a PDS. That is, a program object must originate in a PDSE and m

SMP/E ++PROGRAM

2007-02-25 Thread Paul Gilmartin
I see in: 2.19 "SMP/E V3R4.0 Reference" Usage Notes * The target and distribution libraries for a program element must be a PDS (for pre-built load module) or a PDSE (for a program object). This suggests that a program element targeted for a PDSE must be transformed f