×
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.
Does anyone know if there is a way to have the compiler enforce [DCL-PR] prototype definitions against its associated DCL-PI definition? Earlier versions of RPG [i.e. maybe before V7R1] the compiler would give a message when the DCL-PR specs for a subprocedure in a module did not agree with the corresponding DCL-PI specs. Now that the compiler rules have been relaxed, it is now easier to have the DCL-PI and corresponding DCL-PR specs to become out of sync. For example, I have a DCL-PI in a module that does not accept parameters and just returns a value. I have changed the DCL-PR specs that are in a copybook, and they are pulled in, but they have defined parameter values being passed in. The compiler does not give any message about this. Does anyone know if there is a way to get the compiler to enforce the definitions like it used to do?
Thank you,
Doug
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.
midrange.com
