Re: Checking for missing parameters in CL -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Checking for missing parameters in CL
From: Barbara Morris <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:32:57 -0500
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2018-01-31 12:14 PM, Tyler, Matt wrote:

We were told that MCH3601 was not as reliable as using CEETSTA API
... I think MCH3601 works well if you document that you never intend to have *NULL as a valid value passed to a param.

For a bound call, it's not safe to rely on MCH3601 to detect unpassed parameters. If there happens to be a pointer on the parameter stack from some previous call, your procedure wouldn't get an error if it tried to access the unpassed parameter. Testing %addr wouldn't be reliable either.

I think it's ok for a program call because (I assume, but don't know for sure), that the ILE CL program-entry-procedure initializes all the parameter pointers to either null or the address of the passed parameter before it calls the procedure.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.