At 10/2/2014 04:13 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I got "multiple resolutions" because RSA appeared to overlap the 72
bytes of MYCODE prior to MODEL. If I had been able to set a lower
limit on the named using the problem wouldn't have occurred. Imagine:
M (MODEL,(MODEL,MODELZ)),EMBEDDEDINSTANCE
... where (MODEL,MODELZ) would limit both the bottom and the top of
addressability via the named using.
-- gil
Hmmm. That's not what I'm seeing. Here's a test case I just whipped up.
00000000 00000000 000000B4 37 RSA DSECT ,
00000000 38 REGSAREA DS XL72
00000048 39 INSTNCE1 DS CL(MODELL)
00000050 40 MORESTUF DS CL100
00000000 00000000 00000008 42 ELSEWHER DSECT ,
00000000 43 INSTNCE2 DS CL(MODELL)
00000000 00000000 00000018 45 MYCODE CSECT ,
R:D 00000000 46 USING RSA,R13
R:C 00000000 47 USING ELSEWHER,R12
R:B 00000000 48 USING MYCODE,R11
D 048 00000010 00000048 50 M1 USING
(MODEL,MODELZ),INSTNCE1
C 000 00000010 00000000 51 M2 USING
(MODEL,MODELZ),INSTNCE2
00000000 D207 D048 B010 00000010
00000010 53 MVC M1.MODEL(MODELL),MODEL
00000006 D207 C000 B010 00000010
00000010 54 MVC M2.MODEL(MODELL),MODEL
00000010 56 MODEL DS 0D
00000010 57 FIELD1 DS F
00000014 58 FIELD2 DS F
00000018 59 MODELZ DS 0X
00000008 60 MODELL EQU *-MODEL
(If line wrap has occurred in my code snippet, you may have to
cut/paste it into notepad [or some such] to make it more legible.)
I'm not getting any warnings or errors, and the named USINGs
completely avoid the "multiple resolutions" warning...
In what way does what I'm doing not solve your problem? What am I
misunderstanding?
In rereading your post, I think I see that your problem is that you
are overlaying RSA onto MODEL. Instead, you should overlay MODEL onto
the proper piece of RSA. That, coupled with using named USINGs will
allow for unambiguous resolutions.
Dave
Dave Cole
ColeSoft Marketing
414 Third Street, NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
EADDRESS: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Home page: www.colesoft.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/colesoftware
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/colesoftware
