On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 16:40 -0400, Edward Jaffe wrote:
The behavior of well-defined coding structures like IF/THEN/ELSE, DO, SELECT,
CASE, etc. are extremely well understood--both by programmers and by code
optimizers no matter which language is being employed.
Hmm. I wonder if the COBOL
Edward Jaffe's already cited point, that
begin extract
The behavior of well-defined coding structures like IF/THEN/ELSE, DO,
SELECT, CASE, etc. are extremely well understood--both by programmers
and by code optimizers no matter which language is being employed.
/end extract
is fundamentally
Some languages allow the provision of a label for a block, and a LEAVE
statement that takes a label as an argument. In such languages this
construct performs the same function as your GOTO, but in a way that can
be better understood by the optimizer.
--
Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software
And another disparaging remark against IBMs 'Information Center': I'm trying
to use two different levels for IBM i this morning, both of them are stuck on
'indexing' they then eventually fail. Information center indeed!
Dana
As a general rule, I have found the NEXT GENERATION internet tools to
be a step backwards from their predecessors.
Witness the IBM Support Portal, Internet Library, )
In functionality, data accuracy and performance.
snip
And another disparaging remark against IBMs 'Information Center': I'm
mitchd...@gmail.com (Dana Mitchell) writes:
And another disparaging remark against IBMs 'Information Center': I'm
trying to use two different levels for IBM i this morning, both of
them are stuck on 'indexing' they then eventually fail.
Information center indeed!
a couple recent posts
Gord,
Not quite.
PL/I is the archetypical; language that makes these facilities
available, and in it the label associated with a leave statement can
only be that of a containing group, as in
outer: do ;
inner: do ;
. . .
leave outer :
. . .
end inner :
end outer ;
in which
Nice trick.
--
Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507
On 2012-04-23 13:18, John Gilmore wrote:
Gord,
Not quite.
PL/I is the archetypical; language that makes these facilities
available, and in
On 23 Apr 2012 10:21:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Gord,
Not quite.
If IBM had implemented the EXIT enhancements in the 2002 standard we
would have available
EXIT PERFORM (for inline PERFORMs which are like DO loops)
EXIT PERFORM CYCLE which allows iteration without having to
On 4/23/2012 10:48 AM, Clark Morris wrote:
If IBM had implemented the EXIT enhancements in the 2002 standard we
would have available
EXIT PERFORM (for inline PERFORMs which are like DO loops)
EXIT PERFORM CYCLE which allows iteration without having to do
unnatural things in
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the pointing out that there are no SAF profiles associated with
CSNBSYD/CSNBSYE, and the explanation.
The ICSF Application Programmer's Guide manual states that there are no saf
checks made for these clear key API's.
I verified this by running some tests and you suggested.
On 4/23/2012 11:03 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
___
| | Fortran | C | Ada | PL8 | HLASM |
|Files without GOTO | none | 81.5% | 99.4% | 98.5% | none |
|Lines/GOTO | ~10 | 386 |13614 | 1310 | 8 |
___
| | Fortran | C| Ada | PL8 | HLASM |
|Files without GOTO | none| 81.5% | 99.4% | 98.5% | none |
|Lines/GOTO | ~10 | 386 | 13614 | 1310 | 8 |
Oh well, looked great when I sent it. Guessed it got Mime munged
In a message dated 4/23/2012 1:34:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
efinnel...@aol.com writes:
Courier New(Fixed font)?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Can anyone explain to me why I get Enterprise COBOL V4.1 informational
message IGYOP3094-W in the do-nothing program listed below?
TIA for curing my ignorance.
Peter
PP 5655-S71 IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 4.1.0 TESTGOTO Date
04/23/2012 Time 15
LineID PL SL
Can anyone explain to me why I get Enterprise COBOL V4.1 informational
message IGYOP3094-W in the do-nothing program listed below?
I haven't written in COBOL in over 30 years, but I suspect it's because
SUB-PARA-2 sits in between SUB-PARA-1 and PARA-EXIT.
44SUB-PARA-1.
Dropping through into PARA-2 from PARA-1 when the return from the PERFORM
PARA-2 is still set would result in a loop. Ugly code IMO.
Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State University
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Thanks for that suggestion. I tried moving SUB-PARA-2 in front of SUB-PARA-1,
but the result was the same.
Tom Ross, if you're lurking and available, can you explain why I get this
warning, or better what I can do to prevent it?
I was able to eliminate the message with the following change
On 23 Apr 2012 12:36:08 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:985915eee6984740ae93f8495c624c6c21e1d43...@jscpcwexmaa1.bsg.ad.adp.com)
peter.far...@broadridge.com (Farley, Peter x23353) wrote:
33PERFORM PARA-1 THRU
PARA-EXIT.
34GO TO
Performing a paragraph does not require an exit point, one is generated
automatically.
Same holds true if you perform a SECTION.
However, your perform is branching to an EXIT statement which, in effect, is
trying to short-circuit the PARA-1 when ws-sub is less than 6.
I would suggest taking out
Thanks for the suggestion, but moving the two SUB-PARA's out of the PARA-1 to
PARA-EXIT scope didn't remove the warning.
I *think* what is happening is that COBOL does not like branches to PARA-EXIT
from any paragraph that PARA-1 itself performs, regardless of where they are
placed.
The only
I agree it is ugly code. Not my invention, I'm just the maintainer, so I get
to fix it.
I have to restructure the whole program anyway to add some major new
functionality, so this will just be part of the job.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Hi,
I have a question regarding the usage of the Extract Qedit macros for
operator communication
I have started task looking to process a Flush Or Modify command via the
com/cib the pointer to the CIB is just for the current task
If after issuing the EXTRACT to get the address of the
You can process a stop (P) or modify (F) command.
The CIB is the CIB is the CIB no matter how many tasks you have. Only one
can wait on the (on any, for that matter) ECB at one time, however.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
On 23 April 2012 17:30, Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net wrote:
I have a question regarding the usage of the Extract Qedit macros for
operator communication
I have started task looking to process a Flush Or Modify command via the
com/cib the pointer to the CIB is just for the current
On 4/23/2012 5:30 PM, Micheal Butz wrote:
If after issuing the EXTRACT to get the address of the communication
parameter list (com) and the communication input buffer (cib)
I attach 4 subtasks are the com/cib address obtaining by the originating
tasks valid for the subtask that I have now
On 23 Apr 2012 12:36:08 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why I get Enterprise COBOL V4.1 informational
message IGYOP3094-W in the do-nothing program listed below?
It is bad COBOL because there is a GO TO PARA-EXIT in SUB-PARA-1 which
in this case means that if
27 matches
Mail list logo
