×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Duane,
I always considered this normal behaviour, because I (think I) understand what
is going on. But come to think of it, the binding program could be smarter on
this point.
Think of what happens:
- Compilers create modules with 'open ends' (calls to procedures that are not in
the modules)
- The binding program (or linker, as it was called before IBM re-invented it)
builds a list of 'open ends' and a list of possible candidates for resolving the
calls and then tries to match the two.
- The list of possible candidates has to be assembled from several sources
(exports from other modules, directly specified service programs, binding
directories).
It makes sense that one day one programmer was assigned the task to build a list
of exports from a binding directory. He/she did the job and then someone else
assembled all the bits and pieces to build the binding program. But it is only
in the situation you described (and I have encountered often) that we discover
that the module that lists the exports from a binding directory should be able
to omit the exports from the service program we are replacing.
Joep Beckeringh
Christen, Duane J. wrote:
I have searched the archive and infocenter and have not come up with a good
answer.
Our set-up of Turnover does not allow the use of UPDSRVPGM.
I am re-creating a service program (CRTSRVPGM), which alredy exists in the
binding directory. The binder is finding the exports for the existing
functions in both the modules listed on the CRTSRVPGM command and in the
existing service program (found in the binding directory), which results in
"multiple strong definitions". I know I can get around this by using DUPPROC
and/or DUPVAR (which I have done previously), but this does not seem
"correct" to me. Why would the binder examine the service program that is
going to be replaced for exports which will not exist?
My hope is that we are missing a PTF, my fear is that this is the nature of
the beast.
Duane Christen
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
