× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



David Gibbs wrote:
I'm not sure that's correct ... if the RPG procedure has
extproc(*cl:name) defined, I *THINK* that should allow the procedure
to be called from both RPG and CL, but it will use CL return
parameter mechanism.

OK, to revisit this topic again briefly.

Can anyone think of a downside to adding the extproc(*cl:name) modifier to all prototypes that return a boolean (other than having to recompile all the callers)?

If a single version of the CL program must be able to run on multiple releases that include V6R1 and a
previous release, then the source of the RPG procedure being called also requires a change. Change the
RPG source by adding the EXTPROC(*CL) keyword to the prototype (PR) and procedure interface (PI).
Any RPG programs or modules that call the changed RPG procedure must be recompiled.


I Just received this extract of a memo from IBM. I am asked why all existing RPG callers would have to be recompiled after adding EXTPROC(*CL). All our programmes are bound by copy. Can someone explain?

Also could someone indicate where I might find the complete memo?

Thanks.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.