On 17/01/2006, at 9:13 AM, Larry Bolhuis wrote:

Aha. Yes indeed. I had forgotten that these were call by ref not value.
Interesting that this is a vendor application and the vendor says "Not
gonna fix it, not our problem."

If they wrote both the caller and the receiver then it is their problem. It's a programming defect.

If they wrote the caller and you wrote the receiver (or vice versa) then it is your problem because your code is not complying with the expected interface.

Interesting too that their previous
release did not exibit this issue but the current one does. We seem to
remember the programs were CL before and CLLE now. Shouldn't matter of
course but it does seem to matter.

CL programs and CLLE programs are created via different compilers so it is reasonable to expect that they handle storage differently. It is also possible that the behavioural difference is due simply to different releases of OS/400. For example; I had one problem where my code was walking off the end of a variable and writing data over unallocated storage. On 440 this worked without a problem but crashed on 510. All this means is that the storage I trashed was unused on 440. In both cases I still had a programming defect to correct. It could be that the previous program just happened to have blanks in storage after the 1 byte value but on 530 it has other variable data.

Simon Coulter.
   FlyByNight Software         AS/400 Technical Specialists

   Phone: +61 3 9419 0175   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\
   Fax:   +61 3 9419 0175                                   \ /
                 ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \

This thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page