>>> David Rutherford wrote: 

> Just a thought Steve. Have you had a search around your >series 58 for a jobstream which might have been used in the past > to compile this source?

Thx for the thought; Yes, jobs are woefully out of date...

>>> Robert Schlosser wrote: 
> You problem may not be a problem. Newer versions of the 
> compilers may well generate code of a different length than 
> what is in your original SL  The only way to tell if there is any 
> differences would be to test the application with both the old 
> and new code and compare results. 
 <snip>...

We definitely will do it.  Either way, if we know we have the original source or not, we have to get the users to bless the results, right?   Just a lot more user test if we're not sure.

>>> Dennis Handly wrote: 
<snip> ...
> You could decompile the two SL segments, remove/change the > segment numbers, then try to diff the output.

hmmm...  any free decompilers out there?   any tips on how to pull out the noise? (maybe Kevin Miller knows one... :-)

>>> Dennis Handly then later wrote: 
<snip>
>I was thinking of the PATCH=# parm that would change the size 
> but not the code.

Huh? as an option to -ADDSL to control / tune the match to the target SL?

>>> Keven Miller wrote:  
<snip>

>you could run DECOMP (DECOMP73) on each program/SL 
> segments. And then difference the two with your favorite 
> compare program (DIFF, COMPARE/iX, DIF...)

Thanks for the info - DECOMP.PRIV.SYS! 

> Of couse you better be fluent in your classic assembly reading!

> Might try to find compiler and O.S. from around the create time 
> of the SL or at least from as near to it as you can find.  

ugh!  Oh well: anybody got a COBOLii compiler & Classic OS circa  8/31/88? 

Thanks for it all ...

..unfortunately, based  on  the feedback from the list (especially from Jerry Fochtman  ― thanks, Jerry!)  I am wondering if there are any good sys admin jobs available anywhere in the Rockies (canadian or colorado, I'm not picky) :-(


ps: have been unable to access email from this list since i posted... sorry as to seem too rude to respond until now, and that hopefully explains the strange reply content/structure :-0

Steve


__________________________________________________________________

                Confidentiality Notice

This message may contain privileged and confidential information. If you think, for any reason, that this message may have been addressed to you in error, you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it, and we would ask you to notify us immediately by return email to "[log in to unmask]".