Terry,
 
There is always the chance that the source code that you found may *not* be
the most current, and that could explain why it still works, despite the
PCB changes in MPE/V that someone mentioned.
 
Since the 'guilty' module was located in an SL the solution would be to
provide the same functionality availed by the current routine, using one of
your own.  Examine the parameters passed into the routine, trace their
usage throughout the package (online and batch) and try to supply the
needed values by other means.
 
1. Priority of the process can be gotten/set using the 'getprocinfo' and
        'getprioty' intrinsics.
 
2. Run time parm value can be gotten using the 'getinfo' intrinsic.
 
3. Database names/passwords can be read from a file of your choice.
 
4. For execution mode, term setting, break key setting, etc.. the same
        intrinsics (who, fcontrol,...) can be used.
 
A couple of methods for locating the different 'run modules' that are using
the aforementioned SL routine (or the 'getprivmode' intrinsic) in the event
that set parameters maybe used differently in different modules:
 
1. There is Contributed library program 'proginfo' that can list the
     'externals' of a program file.  Any intrinsics and SL routines would
     show up in that listing.  Program capabilities are also listed.
 
2. You could run *each* run module with the 'lmap' and 'debug' options:
        :Run progname;lib=g;debug;lmap
   This will give you a list of the externals and where they are resolved.
     The SL routine and any intrinsics should show up on the list.(The 'debug'
     option is used so that you could exit without executing the program
     beyond the main entry point).
 
I still think, however, that your number one concern should be to determine
and understand how the parameters passed and set inside the SL routine are
being used.
 
One more item that you may want consider is the possibility that some stand
alone run module of the package, may have the source of the SL routine
'imbedded' into its source. While this should *not* be very likely, after all
they are using an SL, you should locate any run modules that have 'PM'
capability and 'scan' them for perhaps some specific ascii patterns that
you've seen in the source of the SL routine.
 
Good Luck.
 
Regards
 
Paul H. Christidis