Revision as of 04:56, 26 March 2016 edit So-retro-it-hurts (talk \| contribs) 1,507 edits →Is this talking about the same standard? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:57, 26 March 2016 edit undo So-retro-it-hurts (talk \| contribs) 1,507 edits →Intel didn't even have a processor when Relocatable Object Module was being generated Next edit →
Line 3: Intel didn't even have a processor when Relocatable Object Module was being generated in JCL decks on early IBM's using core memory. Heck, they may be older than that.. Any way the idea was that the ROM could be linked into a calling module - adding a base address to its relocatable address. Do the research ... <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:143.115.155.56\|143.115.155.56]] ([[User talk:143.115.155.56\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/143.115.155.56\|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> :Based on [~~http~~https://groups.google.~~co.uk~~com/~~group~~forum/?hl=en#!topic/bit.listserv.ibm-main/~~browse_frm/thread/e376a2b332ff6b77/e1ac646b8ea9cc8c?lnk=st&q=%22What%27s+the+linkage+editor+really+wants%3F%22&rnum=1&hl=en#e1ac646b8ea9cc8c~~43aiszL_a3c this discussion(2006)] of JCL card formats for IBM systems, I'm pretty sure the format you're talking about is a different one that happened to be called by the same name. [[User:JulesH\|JulesH]] 08:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC) ==Is this talking about the same standard?==

Talk:Object Module Format (Intel): Difference between revisions