Since 1990 (or so....)
//COB EXEC PGM=IGYCRCTL,REGION=4M,COND=(4,LT),
// PARM=('CICS("COBOL3,SP")',
// APOST,NOSSRANGE,LIB,MAP,OFFSET)
//STEPLIB DD DISP=SHR,DSN=SYS1.IGY.SIGYCOMP
// DD DISP=SHR,DSN=CICSTS51.CICS.SDFHLOAD
Matthew
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 10:27:43 -0600, Carmen Vitullo <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks Peter, in a former company that's what I was use to also.
>
>Carmen
>
>On 1/11/2022 10:24 AM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
>> Bummer. I can't imagine having my SDLC admin not be at least a semi-skilled
>> z/OS professional, or better yet a set of skilled professionals, but ours is
>> a very large shop so that's what I'm used to having.
>>
>> You have my deepest sympathy.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List<[email protected]> On Behalf Of
>> Carmen Vitullo
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:40 AM
>> To:[email protected]
>> Subject: Re: COBOL V6 question
>>
>> that helps Greatly thanks so much Peter, I was thinking a major project to
>> rework the entire process.
>>
>> unfortunately our Endeavor admin has very little mainframe or Endeavor
>> experience :(
>>
>> thanks again
>>
>> Carmen
>>
>> On 1/11/2022 9:34 AM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
>>> Carmen,
>>>
>>> Not *necessary* but still usable. We are V6 also (6.2, not 6.3 yet), and
>>> with 4.2 going off support this year management made a strong push to
>>> prevent 4.2 modules (changes or additions) from going into production on a
>>> going-forward basis. OTOH, we still have many production programs that
>>> haven't changed in a long time that were originally compiled with V3
>>> running just fine.
>>>
>>> Our DB2 and CICS SDLC process (in-house, not ISV product) still uses the
>>> pre-compilers for V6.2 translations without any problems. If your Endeavor
>>> process to translate DB2 and/or CICS programs use the pre-compilers, they
>>> will continue to work as before. If it ain't broke, there's no urgent need
>>> to "fix" it.
>>>
>>> One slight drawback of the "built-in" DB2 and CICS translation is that your
>>> COBOL listing shows only the original SQL or EXEC CICS statements, not the
>>> underlying MOVE's and CALL's that implement them (you have to use the LIST
>>> compiler option to see the pseudo-assembler equivalent). Some programmers
>>> may call that an improvement, some won't.
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of any significant or documented program runtime performance
>>> benefit from using the "built-in" translators, though there may be
>>> compile-job efficiency to be gained (one step instead of several).
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List<[email protected]> On
>>> Behalf Of Carmen Vitullo
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:05 AMTo:[email protected]
>>> Subject: COBOL V6 question
>>>
>>> Well I just inherited COBOL support and our programmers have been trying to
>>> debug an issue with CICS COBOL, seems Ent COBOL V4 was still being used in
>>> CICS TS 5.4. the tool used is Endeavor, long story short, V6 was being
>>> tested in some processes but never updated in others.
>>> my question is mostly a sanity check, from what I've read the DB2 pre
>>> compiler and the CICS translators are no longer needed, COBOL parms and
>>> options are now used if these are DB2 or CICS programs ?
>>> this is valid ?
>>> thanks Carmen
>> --
>>
>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
>> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
>> If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized
>> representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail
>> and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
