[Default] On 5 Apr 2016 06:49:29 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Cameron Conacher) wrote:
>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. The SET INDEX is a binary add so you would not get a S0C7 unless the statement was SET index-name UP BY variable-name and the conversion to binary triggered the S0C7. Clark Morris > >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
