I guess the rules did change(names removed), from my ETR:
David,
OK, found two pmrs claiming behavior changed by the APAR. It's related
to search/search all comparing the key. In this case we closed a
loophole after enhancing National datatypes and some XML/JAVA related
stuff.
There are two possibilities for the change in behavior.
1) APAR PQ95214 from June, 2005 changed the
behavior to be consistent with an alphameric
compare. That requires that after the
matching parts of the key and argument are
tested, then the rest of the longer field
must be blanks (not ignored as before).
2) A second possibility was that the unused part
of the table was not filled or initialized
with a high key, either HIGH-VALUES or all 9's.
If the unused keys are not initialized to a
high value, the residual data can throw off
the binary search.
Rgds,
xxxxxx,
-------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for the update. Regarding #1, what you are saying seems to be a
change then from
This is found in 6.1.6.5 of manual Enterprise COBOL for z/OS, Language
Reference, Version 3 Release 3, Document Number SC27-1408-02, Program
Number 5655-G53
Operands of
unequal size If the operands are of unequal size, the comparison is made
as though the shorter operand were extended to the right with enough
spaces to make the operands equal in size.
If this is the case, why wouldn't there be a HOLD(ACTION), or at least a
HOLD(DOC) on the PTF? Seems like this is the ENT COBOL 3.3 was designed
and documented.
Dave
----------------------------------------------------------
David,
You're absolutely right. The reason there is no HOLD card there is
because we accidently fixed the loophole. I will publish this to web
to warn other users and update PSP bucket.
thanks,
--------------------------------------------------------
Ok, now we are getting somewhere.
If the old behavior is documented in the V3.3 reference manual and was
working as documented pre PQ95214, then you didnt fix a loophole, you
changed documented functionality. I don't understand how this can be?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jousma, David
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:38 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: COBOL/LE runtime changes
All, I was just reviewing my applied PTF's, and see that PQ95214 went
on. It provides runtime support for ent cob 3.4. ee are at 3.3, but
I'm wondering it it "tightened" some of the rules. I've asked this of
IBM. I may back this PTF off on one of my tech systems to see if it
makes a difference. Again, I've only had a handful of jobs abend to this
point, but I just need to be able to explain this to our management.
Dave
This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be
privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you
receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any
manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please
reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was
misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your
assistance in correcting this error is appreciated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
