Re: ILE bug or "feature"?

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Douglas Handy wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> >This implies that when the module is loaded into memory that it's not
> >initializing its variables to NULL, as I believe that it should.
> 
> These were *Entry parameters, so it can't initialize the variables.  When you
> use a *Entry PLIST, it expects to find pointers for each PARM on the call 
>stack.
> Since a previous invocation of TEST1 had put pointers there and the call to
> TEST2 had not replaced any of them, the pointers were still sitting on the
> stack.
> 
> >It seems to me that the addresses of the parameters should be *NULL if
> >they weren't ever SET by passing parms to the procedure.  
> 
> XTEST did not use a prototyped call to TESTn, so it has no way of knowing that
> TEST2 may be expecting 5 parameters.  All RPGLE programs will show a parameter
> range of 0 minimum to 255 maximum in the object description.  (Do a DSPPGM and
> roll down 3 times to see this.)  So do you think it should have called TEST1
> with 5 pointers followed by 250 null pointers, and TEST2 with 255 null 
>pointers?

No... but at run time, the RPG program knows how many parms were passed to
it (since it returns that info with the %parms BIF) and it knows how
many PARM statements followed the "*ENTRY PLIST" statement in the
program.   Why couldn't it initialize the address of any unpassed parm to
*NULL?


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---