Re: Cool V5R2 courtesy of IBM(?)

["Brian Johnson" <brian.johnson.mn@xxxxxxxxx>]

I can't say how common  it is, but yes, others (including me) have noticed
this sort of 'magic' before.  It's not always appreciated though.  For
example I recently developed an RPGIV module onV5R3, using TRGRLS(*PRV),
that had to be compiled on V5R2 for production use.  The module was tested,
including installing and running on a V5R2 partition.  I thought using
TGTRLS(*PRV) would catch any unintentional use of V5R3 language
enhancements.  Wrong!  Of course, I had used V5R3 features that, of course,
could not be compiled onV5R2.  This experience has refined by understanding
of the TGTRLS parameter.  It insures the module can be run on the target
release but not necessarily compiled there.


On 4/3/07, qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Here's a simple CL program:
>
> pgm
>
>     dcl   &uint       *uint
>     dcl   &int        *int
>
>     chgvar     &int      ( 0 )
>
>     dofor      &uint     from( 1 ) to( 10 )
>        select
>        when  ( &uint *eq 1 )  +
>           dmpclpgm
>        when  ( &uint *eq 10 )  +
>           dmpclpgm
>        otherwise  +
>           chgvar &int     &uint
>        endselect
>     enddo
>     return
>
> endpgm
>
> Rather pointless except that it uses various fancy things that IBM
> made available in V5R3... _and_ it compiles back to and runs on V5R2!
>
> How? By compiling it on our *V5R4* system with TGTRLS(V5R2M0). Simple.
>
> While looking for something (which I promptly forgot about), I
> noticed that the QSYSV5R2M0 library on one of our V5R3 machines was
> different from the library on our V5R4 system. Wondering if the
> implication held up, I threw together the above, made sure it
> 'worked' on V5R4, recompiled back to V5R2, FTPd it via savefile to
> one of our V5R2 systems, restored... and Voila! It worked.
>
> Nothing earth-shattering, I know. But when you have a bunch of
> systems that you'd like to manage with general control procedures,
> this can make a very nice difference.
>
> Am I just now learning something the world has known for years?
> (Wouldn't be the first time.) This is 'normal' for V5R2, right?
>
> I've often thought that CL "internal" commands such as DO, SELECT,
> DCL, etc., that are only valid in compiled programs should be easier
> to create back-level, but I never really expected to see it.
>
> Tom Liotta
>
> --
> Tom Liotta
> The PowerTech Group, Inc.
> 19426 68th Avenue South
> Kent, WA 98032
> Phone  253-872-7788 x313
>         253-479-1416
> Fax    253-872-7904
> http://www.powertech.com
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.