RE: [MI400] Match program object to source member; CAN'T use sourcelast update timestamp in object

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Err...  On my UNIX systems I use md5 checksums in this way :)

I would think that, although the "header/description" of the program
might be different, the actual executable code would be the same.   Of
course, I've  never done it, so I should probably just keep my nose out of
this discussion :)


On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Dan Bale wrote:

> Scott, using QSCMATPG to materialize two program objects compiled from the
> exact same source shows there are some differences, so if this is what you
> were talking about calculating a checksum for, this would not work.
>
> However, your idea got me thinking, although a little late in the game I
> think.  What if IBM built in a hash value from the live source statements
> used to compile the program object and stored it in the program object?
> Then provide a separate utility/API to for us users to run on a specified
> source member that spits out a hash value.  Match that to the one in the
> program object, and you're good to go.  By "live source statements", the
> compiler would ignore all comment statements and comment areas within live
> statements (i.e., columns 60-80 on a C-spec).
>
> Shoulda thought of that about 13 years ago...
>
> Dan Bale
> SAMSA, Inc.
> 989-790-0507
> DBale@SAMSA.com <mailto:DBale@SAMSA.com>
>   Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
>   (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mi400-admin@midrange.com [mailto:mi400-admin@midrange.com]On
> Behalf Of Scott Klement
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:57 AM
> To: mi400@midrange.com
> Cc: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: [MI400] Match program object to source member; CAN'T use
> source last update timestamp in object
>
>
>
> I guess if this were my project, I'd use MI to get the actual executable
> code of the program, and create an MD5 checksum of it.   Then I'd compile
> the source to QTEMP, and take an MD5 checksum of that, and see if they're
> the same.
>
> Slow & ugly, I know. :)
>