Clark Morris wrote: >>>I read the APAR and Tom Ross's SHARE presentation and have the following >>>question.
I must have missed that SHARE presentation, but will search again later for this. For now, for what version of COBOL is this applicable? >For installations that have CSP or its descendants, NUMPROC(MIG) is a useful >performance enhancement because it gives better performance than NUMPROC(NOPFD). CSP and the last descendant I checked (VISUAL GEN I think) for some reason lost in time insist on forcing F zones for positive numbers in signed fields. While I would agree with any derisive comments made about this and the expensive and convoluted coding required for this, the fact remains that this is a problem for users of the IBM CSP family. It could be a problem, but IBM COBOL manual said, you must *only* use NUMPROC(PFD) if all your data agrees exactly with IBM system standards as listed in NUMPROC chapter in Enterprise COBOL for z/OS Programming Guide. Any (good, bad, ugly) comments about this part (from Enterprise COBOL for z/OS Programming Guide) ? " ... However, using REDEFINES and group moves could change data so that it no longer conforms [to system standards]. " What will the performance impact be if your data format is changed? What about NUMCLS option? Does that SHARE presentation also mention this? (I'm still searching for it at this moment...) Just curious, if you don't mind please. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
