It's been a while for me on COBOL - but I would not think that setting the index higher than the occurs value should cause a S0C7. Now if you are accessing data in a table with the INDEX and the values in the table are numeric - AND when you hit the ninth value as stated below and the data is not numeric - then that would be a valid S0C7 premise.
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cameron Conacher Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: COBOL 5.2 Programs too large to compile? 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.v > 2r1.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
