I am not sure just yet, but I suspect that I will find out that first the INDEX went one past the number of items in the array, and something was stored in the item which would step on top of the INDEX itself, and then when they tried to increment the INDEX again, it died on a S0C7.
Still hunting...... On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Burrell, C. Todd (CDC/OCOO/OCIO/ITSO) (CTR) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
