>If other programs that handle files created by CSP (and maybe its >successors) were using NUMPROC(MIG) because it was more efficient than >NUMPROC(NOPFD), then those programs may have to be recompiled with >NUMPROC(NOPFD) because there can be problems. I ran into that with a >program that for whatever reason did an IF NUMERIC test of a field >that had be affected by CSP and using NUMPROC(PFD) with that program >caused the field to test not numeric. Recompiling the program in >question with NUMPROC(MIG) solved the problem. The problem is not the >compiler options used for the COBOL generation of CSP programs, the >problem is the compiler options of the programs that use the output >from CSP programs.
That was an error, the correct solution would have been NUMPROC(NOPFD). It is just a coincidence that NUMPROC(MIG) solved the problem. If preferred signs are not enforced, you use NUMPROC(NOPFD). If preferred signs are always enforced, then you can use NUMPROC(PFD). If you are migrating from OS/VS COBOL, and mixing OS/VS COBOL with newer COBOL, then you might have used NUMPROC(MIG). >Why was NUMPROC(MIG) eliminated? We don't support mixing OS/VS COBOL with Enterprise COBOL V5, so it is no longer relevant. Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
