Re: CL Parameter ends up fulla crud.

[Simon Coulter <shc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

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  / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------