Re: Regarding retrieving source from modules

[Jim Langston <jlangston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well then, Hans, what about the fact that we can retrieve CL
source code? We have been able to do that for a very long time,
and I don't think that people rely or depend on it.  It is just a
nice safety cushion.

My only convert with compiling with DBGVIEW(*LIST) or (*ALL)
is the executable size increase.  On average, what percentage size
increase is there in a program compiled with DBGVIEW(*NONE)
(the default) and DBGVIEW(*LIST) ?

I know when I am debugging a program I will recompile it with
DBGVIEW(*ALL), do all my debugging, then when I'm done I'll
re-compile it again with DBGVIEW(*NONE).  I'm not sure if
this is really required, but I know in the PC world debugging data
can both bloat a program and make it run slower (the compiler
can't, or won't, do as many ... um... er... what's the word I'm
look for... makes the executable more efficient and faster...
not enhancements... oh well, that thing whatever it is.).

Regards,

Jim Langston

boldt@ca.ibm.com wrote:

> <SNIP>
> Using the dbgview(*list) information is a cute trick, but it's
> too prone to misuse to be considered a reliable technique for
> source recovery.

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---