From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-23 01:54:08 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!zen.net.uk!btnet-peer1!btnet-feed3!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail
From: "Pointless Harlows" <pointless_nopinkmeat@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: IEFBR14, was Re: status of PL/I as a viable language
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Message-ID: <b3a5nh$g6i$1@knossos.btinternet.com>
References: <f2rb5v8020kkvq6tsf0uqg91pfbk9errs7@4ax.com>
 <E65DA1BAEE8B3C52.29B16126289D882E.5EB549036373C4E5@lp.airnews.net>
 <b366jv$j2r$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <3E574C46.2F195258@yahoo.com>
 <jeif5vgolm3m7ovrs8ogvjk2u77vlm0ttq@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host217-39-58-71.in-addr.btopenworld.com
X-Trace: knossos.btinternet.com 1045994033 16594 217.39.58.71 (23 Feb 2003
 09:53:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4437 comp.lang.ada:34466
Date: 2003-02-23T09:53:53+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Robert Munck" <munck@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jeif5vgolm3m7ovrs8ogvjk2u77vlm0ttq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:04:06 GMT, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > (AFAIK) IEFBR14 hasn't been rewritten since release 1.0 of
> >OS/360.
>
> Not true. I wrote an upgrade of it for R6.0, renamed it IEFBR15.
>
> (If you know what that did, well, you're old and in the way.)
>
> Bob Munck

I guess that upgrade has some serious advantages:
  a) It required half the memory of IEFBR14
  b) It didnt suffer from the non-sero return code problem.
  c) Nobody could prove it was wrong because nobody could wait around long
enough for it to finish....

:-)