On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:19:18 +0300 Arie Kremer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>I have no clue what may has been a difference in the memory representation :>between :>01 INPUT-MESSAGE-AREA. :> 05 IP-DATA. :> 10 IP-EYE-CATCHER PIC X(8). :> 10 IP-ACCT-ID PIC 9(9). :>and :>01 INPUT-MESSAGE-AREA. :> 05 IP-EYE-CATCHER PIC X(8). :> 05 IP-ACCT-ID PIC 9(9). :>We move to a customer program 17 bytes. When the customer uses the second :>form, it works. With the first one, there has been a gap before the eye :>catcher. :>Does somebody know? You will have to provide more data: 1. The precise entire record layout of both, not just the extract above. 2. The MOVE statement used. The extract above would be identical in memory. -- Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
