IBM COBOL development needs your help! We are reviewing a request to change our support for OPTFILE and SYSOPTF to allow usage of DD SYSOPTF without the compiler option OPTFILE.
For background, this is where you can avoid the 255 character limit for PARM= in JCL when specifying COBOL compiler options. Currently, if you specify compiler option OPTFILE, the compiler tries to OPEN the file allocated to DD SYSOPTF, and read compiler options from that file. OK, we got an RFE (Request For Enhancement) to have the compiler always try to use SYSOPTF, with or without the OPTFILE compiler option. The use of SYSOPTF would then only be controlled by the existence of SYSOPTF. Our concern is, would this affect current users of SYSOPTF? Are there users of SYSOPTF with COBOL who sometimes compile with NOOPTFILE and leave the DD statement for SYSOPFT in their JCL/Changeman compile jobs? If so, then automatically accessing SYSOPTF without using OPTFILE could cause problems. This leads to another question...do any of your shops use OPTFILE and SYSOPTF for COBOL compiles? Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
