×
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.
Hey Rory,
<snip>
If a procedure has a parameter passed to it as *OMIT, then the address of
that parameter is null. If this parameter is referenced (including simply
passing it to another procedure), could that cause runtime problems?
</snip>
Passing a null (or invalid) address of an incoming parameter to another procedure is the main cause of issues when using OPTIONS(*NOPASS) in chains of procedure calls, and is core to the OPs original problem. It is way too easy to pass a reference to a parm you didn't actually receive to another procedure. That is why we have to check %parms and use the appropriate call - ensuring we don't pass what we didn't receive.
This is not the same for OPTIONS(*OMIT). We did receive a valid (null) address. This null address can be safely passed on only if the procedure you are passing the ommitted parameter to also has OPTIONS(*OMIT) defined for that parameter. If it does the called procedure would have code checking the validity of the parameter.
<snip>
I assumed (there I go again, making an ass...) that using that parameter
directly could give the same sort of problems as referencing an unpassed
parameter (even though they are very different things).
</snip>
Using an incoming parameter on a call does not check the validity of the parameter address. It is just passed I believe. There will be scenarios where a conversion due to the use of const or value fails, but that is another issue.
<snip>
Essentially, all parameters are based variables and an omitted parameter is
simply one where the basing pointer is null. Thus my concern over passing an
omitted parameter to another procedure...
</snip>
I understand your concerns, but this would only be an issue if the procedure you are calling is not expecting an omitted parm. In this scenario you are correct. In the case of the OPs example both procedures had the same definition for parms 2 and 3. So, if proc1 accepts a *OMIT in parm 2 it is reasonable to pass that *OMIT along to parm 2 of proc2. Passing an invalid (or even sometimes accidentally valid) address for an non-passed parm 3 to proc2 is, however, totally unacceptable. This is why we check %parms and only pass parm 3 if %parms >= 3.
Cheers
Larry Ducie
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This thread ...
Re: Calling similiar (overloaded) procedure that has *nopass *omit in the parameter, (continued)
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.