Thank you Mike,
However, we seem to see a problem with INDEX.
Specifically when SETting the INDEX value greater than the number of OCCURs.
We did not yet get to the point of accessing the n+1th array item.
So, if there are eight items in the array, then SET INDEX UP BY +1 when
INDEX is already eight, appears to have caused a S0C7.
I say appears, because I did not do the test myself.
I can see there would be aa problem with trying to access a ninth item in
an array of eight items, but setting the INDEX to 9 causing an error?
Hmmmmm seems odd to me.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Mike Schwab <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ceea100/ceea1mst83.htm
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Cameron Conacher <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > We need up turning off optimization and the program compiled.
> > We are now seeing some coding issues. We have programs that SET
> INDEX-ITEM UP BY +1 where the value would would be larger than the OCCURS
> clause defined. Resulting in 0C7.
> > We do not see this with previous versions if COBOL.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Apr 1, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Tom Marchant <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 08:47:14 -0400, Scott Ford wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tom,
> >>>
> >>> It would be nice to run/use 64 bit addressing...second comment about
> time
> >>> geez IBM...
> >>
> >> Maybe yes, maybe no. IBM's stated direction for 64-bit applications
> generated by Cobol is that they will be XPLINK-64. AFAIK, if you want a
> non-XPLINK LE-enabled program to call an XPLINK program, you have to create
> a new enclave. Same with XPLINK-64 calling XPLINK or XPLINK calling
> XPLINK-64.
> >>
> >> XPLINK programs can call non-XPLINK programs that are not LE enabled,
> but the overhead of the call is rather high. And if you have a Cobol
> program you probably make quite a few non-XPLINK calls. For example, GET
> and PUT routines.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016, Tom Marchant <
> >>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 22:17:40 -0400, Don Poitras <[email protected]
> >>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <
> [email protected]
> >>>> <javascript:;>> you wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, it uses 64-bit addressing, so has much more available space,
> >>>> specifically for large programs, including generated ones.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If so, they didn't make it obvious in the announcement. I don't see
> >>>>> anything about 64-bit.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think Bill means that the compiler runs AMODE(64), not that it can
> >>>> generate AMODE(64) programs.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Tom Marchant
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >>>> send email to [email protected] <javascript:;> with the
> message:
> >>>> INFO IBM-MAIN
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >>> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
>
> --
> Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
> Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to