Re: C400-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 63

It's just IBM's friendly way of telling you to USE JAVA.

However, I agree with you.  I am sorry to see that the attitude from the AIX
group ("It compiles, ship it."  It caused me endless nightmares a few years ago
when I was porting software from AIX to the AS/400 PASE environment.) seems to
have infected this aspect of OS/400 development.

-Doc

--- c400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Send C400-L mailing list submissions to
>       c400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/c400-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       c400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       c400-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of C400-L digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. More loss of function in C compiler (Simon Coulter)
>    2. Re: More loss of function in C compiler (Buck Calabro)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> message: 1
> date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:09:48 +1000
> from: Simon Coulter <shc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> subject: [C400-L] More loss of function in C compiler
> 
> Not content with removing compiler support for externally described  
> database files now we have to contend with debug function being  
> removed.
> 
> Version 4 allowed OPTION(*EXPMAC) with DBGVIEW(*LIST) which was very  
> useful when debugging macro code.
> 
> Version 5 (510) exhibited problems (MCH0601 pointer errors) in some  
> cases with this combination of parameters. IBM solution is to not use  
> that combination and they intend to disallow that combination in some  
> future release. See:
> 
> http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss? 
> uid=nas1d25be446febe5c8c86256ce50053e553&rs=110
> 
> That future release would appear to be 530 with message CZS2119 so  
> macro debugging is no longer allowed. So much for the bloody marvellous  
> AIX C compiler that would make porting C code to OS/400 easier.
> 
> Don't fix the problem--just stop it from occurring and remove  
> previously working behaviour in the process. Thanks a bloody lot IBM!
> 
> Who else finds this attitude unacceptable? What can we do about it?  
> This defect should be fixed instead of just being masked.
> 
> Regards,
> Simon Coulter.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     FlyByNight Software         AS/400 Technical Specialists
> 
>     http://www.flybynight.com.au/
>     Phone: +61 3 9419 0175   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\
>     Fax:   +61 3 9419 0175                                   \ /
>                                                               X
>                   ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> message: 2
> date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:00:51 -0400
> from: "Buck Calabro" <buck.calabro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> subject: [C400-L] Re: More loss of function in C compiler
> 
> > Who else finds this attitude unacceptable?
> 
> I do.  It goes against everything the compiler teams have ever done in
> the past.
> 
> > What can we do about it?
> 
> A DCR?  There's a link to the Design Change Request in the FAQ.
> 
> > This defect should be fixed instead of just being masked.
> 
> I agree.  I have enough trouble compiling stuff in C on iSeries
> without having to fight the compiler/debugger more with the next
> release.
>   --buck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the C programming iSeries / AS400 (C400-L) digest list
> To post a message email: C400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/c400-l
> or email: C400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/c400-l.
> 
> 
> 
> End of C400-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 63
> *************************************
>