Remember, the early worm gets the bird.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Schmitt, Michael [michael.schm...@dxc.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 2:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: A question or two on zOS issues You're right, and fortunately we were saved from that pain because we procrastinated so long. And we skipped v5 completely. We procrastinated because it took me a long time to rewrite our load module analyzer, as well as other PDS-dependencies. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 1:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: A question or two on zOS issues As long as you use the correct compiler options with COBOL 5+ to replicate those of your pre-5 COBOL you were likely OK. In our shop we did not do this properly (*) and had issues. (*) I believe the main issue was some pre-v5 options were not originally implemented in V5, so there was no possibility to replicate our V4 options. There were many updates to V5 (and V6) to make those options available, at which point the issues "went away". ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Steve Thompson <ste...@wkyr.net> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 11:26 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> Subject: Re: A question or two on zOS issues Glad to hear that someone followed all the rules so that, unannounced COBOL 5+ didn't cause you packed decimal problems with Truncation and the like. Or same thing with binary. Steve Thompson On 3/27/2023 10:31 AM, Schmitt, Michael wrote: > The last time we mass-converted and recompiled our COBOL was from OS/VS COBOL > to VS COBOL II in 1992. Since then we've migrated our 7 million lines of > COBOL code... > > - 1998 Language Environment > - 2000 COBOL for MVS & VM > - 2003 COBOL for OS/390 & VM > - 2004 COBOL for z/OS & OS/390 3.2 > - 2005 3.3 > - 2006 3.4 > - 2011 4.2 > - 2020 6.2 > > By doing... nothing. > > The hardest part of going to IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 6 was the PDSE > requirement for load modules. > > > So, in my experience, we don't need to know when our COBOL programs were last > used. And we already have tools that give us the compile date and version, > both from IBM and home grown. > > We still have a large number of programs that haven't been recompiled since > the VS COBOL II migration. They coexist just fine. > > (You may have to *relink* to pick up the Language Environment bootstrap > programs) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of > Steve Pryor > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 1:39 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: A question or two on zOS issues > > There are a couple of pressing issues in z/OS that I'm sure many folks are > aware of but about which there doesn't seem to be much being done. I'm > curious as to what other IBM-MAINer's thoughts might be. Specifically, I'm > talking about: > > 1.) migration to IBM's latest COBOL release, and > > 2.) the not-really-that-far-off issue of Year 2042 > > I've been asked several times recently whether we (a z/OS ISV) should > consider developing products to address these issues. Frankly, though, I live > in an ivory tower and while I sometime *think* I know what installations > problems and needs are, I'm usually surprised to find that reality is quite > different. So I'd like to throw a couple of questions out to the list for > comment: > > 1.) Would a reporting utility that determined which COBOL programs were > executed (and which ones weren't), and what release and options they were > compiled with be significantly helpful in a COBOL migration? What other > features would be nice to have? Or is this a low priority for most > installations, who are perhaps trying to justify keeping the mainframe alive > and/or conducting business as usual, let alone doing a COBOL migration > project? > > 2.) It's rather shocking that 2042 is so close and not much seems to be > happening. We are one of the vendors that have a date-simulation utility, but > we don't know if data centers have any near-term plans for 2042. Would it be > worthwhile to have a 2042 date-simulation product now, or is everyone going > to cross their fingers and try to use a test LPAR once the operating system > fully supports 2042 dates? > > Thanks for any comments and insight the IBM-MAIN hive mind might have. > > Steve Pryor > CTO > DTS Software, LLC > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Regards, Steve Thompson VS Strategies LLC Westfield IN 972-983-9430 cell ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
