Only time this could happen Doug is if you fail to include a /Cop of the protos in the procedure definition. If you include them they are checked.

Jon Paris

On Aug 22, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Doug Englander <denglander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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,


This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.

Help support by shopping at with our affiliate link:

This thread ...


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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 by 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].