> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Ross
>
> >With the change in Enterprise COBOL v5.1 to produce "program objects"
> >instead of "load modules", including the DWARF debug information and
> >(optionally) source statements in non-loadable "segments" of the "program
> >object",
> >we are curious how others handle the source statements: Include them
> >in the program object (via compiler option TEST=3D(EJPD,SOURCE)), or
> >maintain them in a separate dataset (via compiler option
> >TEST(EJPD,NOSOURCE), requiring post-processing of the compiler
> >listing with EQALANGX to produce the source statement information)?
> >If the latter, how is the program object "connected to" its corresponding
> >"source listing"?
>
> Sorry for being late with this, but I have been travelling spreading the good
> news (and even the not
> so good :-) about COBOL V5, and just got back to my office.
>
> I cannot answer what my customers are doing, but I can clarify something for
> you. Our intention is
> that with TEST(NOSOURCE) you would use the raw compiler listing. For COBOL
> V5 we are trying to avoid
> LANGX processing of listings.
> To find the listings you would use the normal commands in Debug Tool or the
> exit where you specify
> datasets to search. And now, an ugly truth...it does not work yet! We are
> working on adding support
> for Debug Tool with TEST(NOSOURCE) and hope to have it this year.
> (TEST(NOSOURE) is only available in
> COBOL V5 so this is new function for Debug Tool)
The original looks a lot like my query, so I'll volunteer that we initially set
TEST(EJPD,SOURCE) as our installation default (along with ARCH(9) (z114) and a
couple others). In CICS, Debug Tool promptly died with CICS abend ASRA and LE
abend 4038. Seems that two HIPER APARs were taken on Debug Tool, and one of
the PTFs just became available a couple weeks ago. We've applied those PTFs
and will IPL the DEV system this weekend to roll in the maintenance. We also
found DOC APAR PI96501 instructing to place SYS1.MIGLIB and SYS1.SIEAMIGE into
the //DFHRPL concatenation.
We're current on the requisite LE and Binder maintenance, and so far there's no
perceptible difference between programs compiled with COBOL v4.2 and those
compiled with COBOL v5.1 (so long as we don't try to "debug" the v5.1 programs).
-jc-
**********************************************************************
Information contained in this e-mail message and in any attachments thereto is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this
message, delete any copies held on your systems, notify the sender immediately,
and refrain from using or disclosing all or any part of its content to any
other person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
