Skip to Main Content
IBM Power Ideas Portal


This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Power Systems products, including IBM i. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).


Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Delivered
Workspace IBM i
Created by Guest
Created on Mar 16, 2017

%PARMS built-in function for CLLE

Supporting optional parameters in CLLE is made more difficult by the omission of a %PARMS-like built-in function for CLLE similar to that provided for RPGLE.


Use Case:

%ADDR in CLLE is useful in the case of *OMITted parameters but is not indicated for parameters that are not passed because generated parameter lists can end up having old parameter addresses that follow on in storage in the case that previous calls to the same CL procedure provided those parameters. The same applies to the use of MONMSG for MCH3601.

The only other choice is CEE routines but calling these is a more technical endeavor when simply providing a %PARMS built-in function for CLLE is much easier for the programmer to implement.


Idea priority High
  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    May 28, 2019

    This function is included with IBM i 7.4 release, which will be generally available on June 21, 2019

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Apr 2, 2018

    We delivered the new %PARMS built-in function for ILE CL compiler by PTF SI66721 for V7R3.
    %PARMS returns the number of parameters that were passed to the program in which %PARMS is used.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Aug 1, 2017

    The CAAC has reviewed this requirement and recommends that IBM view this as a medium priority requirement that should be addressed.

    Background: The COMMON Americas Advisory Council (CAAC) members have a broad range of experience in working with small and medium-sized IBM i customers. CAAC has a key role in working with IBM i development to help assess the value and impact of individual RFEs on the broader IBM i community, and has therefore reviewed your RFE.

    For more information about CAAC, see www.common.org/caac

    For more details about CAAC's role with RFEs, see http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/Blogs/i-Can/May-2017/COMMON-Americas-Advisory-Council-%28CAAC%29-and-RFEs/

    Dawn May - CAAC Program Manager

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Jul 25, 2017

    Result of my investigation for CAAC consideration:

    I had wondered about how CLP and CLLE programs differ in handling parameters. One of the ways is that CLP requires that the number and type of parameters must match. If you don't do that, you get a CPD0172 message (Parameters passed on CALL do not match those required.).

    CLLE seems to be relaxed in this regard, at least as to the number of parameters passed. I seem to recall taking advantage of this, to see what was passed, say, to a command-processing program - I'd declare a single long-enough parameter, then look at it, substring it, whatever.

    This isn't possible with CLP, so far as I can tell after a quick test this morning.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Jul 24, 2017

    Approved for CAAC discussion by Tom Duncan, CAAC member

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Mar 16, 2017

    To add to my previous comment,, this would also necessitate adding a new MINPARMS(n) parameter on the CRTCLPGM command, to specify the minimum number of parameters required for the OPM CLP PGM. The maximum # can be determined by the compiler from the PARM(...) statement, as is done today.

    This is needed because the OS checks the number of parameters on any external program call to an OPM *PGM.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Mar 16, 2017

    I would like to suggest that, for completeness and compatibility, this new %parms() BIF should also be added to and supported in OPM CLP.

    This is VERY IMPORTANT because of the devastating nature that passing the wrong number of parameters can cause, such as storage overlays, memory leaks, etc.