> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Clark Morris
>
> On 1 May 2009 07:52:30 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Phil Sidler
> >>
> >> On Fri, 1 May 2009 08:38:59 -0500, Chase, John wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Thanks for pointing out the benefit of TRUNC(OPT) to me.
> >> >
> >> >But then there's this in the "Notes" for TRUNC in the Installation
&
> >> >Customization Guide:
> >> >
> >> >" 2. TRUNC=BIN is the recommended option when interfacing with
other
> >> >products that have S/390-format binary data (such as CICS, DB2,
> >FORTRAN,
> >> >and PL/I). This is especially true if there is a possibility of
> >having
> >> >more than 9 digits in a fullword or more than 4 digits in a
> >halfword."
> >> >
> >> >So, we're stuck with TRUNC(BIN) in CICS, where arguably we'd want
the
> >> >"best" performance. :-(
> >>
> >> I think that if you use the CICS integrated translator then TRUNC()
> >becomes
> >> mostly irrelevant in the CICS environment. The integrated
translator
> >will
> >> use COMP-5 internally. Why IBM didn't choose to use COMP-5 fields
> >during
> >> translation before this for COBOL3 I never understood.
> >
> >We also use Rational Developer for System z (RDz) in conjunction with
> >the CICS Service Flow Feature to generate "driver" or "wrapper"
programs
> >for Service Flows. Those generated programs contain working storage
> >fields defined with PIC S9(8) COMP and S9(4) COMP which are untouched
by
> >the CICS translator, integrated or standalone, leaving us "stuck
with"
> >using TRUNC(BIN). I suppose we could manually edit the "obvious"
> >halfword and fullword fields in the generated source to COMP-5, but
"why
> >should we have to do that?"
>
> If you are NOT doing any conversions to and/or from either packed
> decimal or character, TRUNC(OPT) should work just fine with your
> current definitions. BINARY/COMP to BINARY/COMP does not get
> truncated to picture when using TRUNC(OPT). Run a test and verify it
> for yourself.
We have. It truncates at 8 decimal digits. Enterprise COBOL for z/OS
3.4.1.
When an IF statement compares a S9(8) COMP variable for equality to a
fullword constant whose decimal value is greater than 99999999, it
writes a message in the compiler listing to the effect that "the result
of comparison is already known" and basically generates only the "else"
branch of the code (it doesn't generate the comparison code).
-jc-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
