-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: editting testing COBOL code (was:Now is time for banks to
replace core system according to
Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote in message
news:mq7tc51ajbefs2n1tc5e769m2gb2aep...@4ax.com...
On 8 Oct 2009 14:08:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
snip
It could be done
much snippage
For those in IBM-MAIN who don't follow such things. Clark has had long
When it comes specifically to 64-bit COBOL, the biggest issue (IMHO) is
mixing of 31-(and/or 24-)bit COBOL with 64-bit COBOL.
It is my impression (and I do NOT speak for IBM) that IBM is aware of the
desire for 64-bit COBOL, but that (given the LE, not z/OS restriction on
mixed 31-/64-bit) code,
Lots of good performance improvement comments snipped
One more time,
Have you created either a SHARE requirement or a marketing REQUEST for any
of the specific compiler changes to get performance improvements in
Enterprise COBOL (specifically those using higher ALS instructions)?
If not, why
I am a COBOL person not an Assembler person. Don't the grande
instructions require a specific architecture level set? If so, that might
be why (as others in the thread have indicated), COBOL does NOT do what you
are asking about.
It would seem a reasonable SHARE requirement for something like
USER BEWARE
I have NOT tried it, but the thing that I expect WILL impact COBDFSYM is the
fact that Enterprise COBOL V4R2 (not V4R1) *DOES* allow for underscores in
user-defined words - even as the last character of the user-defined word.
Consider (in particular) a (valid in Enterprise COBOL
(RCF - to IBM,
CC to IBM-MAIN)
Title: Enterprise COBOL for z/OS V4.2 Language Reference
Document Number: SC23-8528-01
Build Date: 08/21/09 08:10:20
At:
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igy3lr50/6.1.8.9.1
It states, for a file status of 97 in the column Meaning
For VSAM
previous comments in this thread snipped
For any (all) of you who dislike the file status 97 - especially anyone
involved in a VSE to MVS conversion (where this seems to be a medium-high
priority problem), please consider submitting a
Marketing Request
to IBM and reference the existing SHARE
For those who want a PDF version of the Announcement see:
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS209-244/ENUS209-244.PDF
Of possible special interest to some sites, you may want to notice that
there is NO drop date for support for V3.4 (V3.3 and earlier already have
support
*JUST* on the issue of the Binder API requiring the LE run-time, I have a
question for you (WB)
Were your discussions with STL done before or after Metal-C became
available? It would seem to me (and I certainly could be ENTIRELY wrong on
this), that a SHARE requirement to provide a Metal-C (no
Chris Craddock crashlu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:b0c6f15b0908212236g510fd9cbq661ae41f9627e...@mail.gmail.com...
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Bill Klein wmkl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
snip
Bill K... this is a can of worms best left unopened. Suffice to say Bill
Blair's commentary
I know that ranting on IBM-MAIN is always a good way to spend your time, but
Are you aware that the ASM project at SHARE accepts and processes
requirements against the Binder? If anyone who participates in SHARE needs
assistance in creating a binder requirement, please feel free to contact
Out of curiosity, were you compiling with the OPT compiler option? If not,
does changing to that generate the same instructions?
Farley, Peter x23353 peter.far...@broadridge.com wrote in message
news:053f2631ec9c584883847c8b4970a22804998...@josqems1.jsq.bsg.ad.adp.com.
..
I am in the midst of a
Did you see,
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ceea3190/2.2.5.69
.1
which says (in part),
z/OS UNIX considerations--IMS supports only applications that use the
POSIX(ON) run-time option from a single thread.
You don't say, but I *assume* you are not running under
Frank,
As others have pointed out, there are still other ways to do set LE
options.
One difference between the old ways (e.g. CEEDCOPT) and the new ways
(PARMLIB) is that the old ways allowed for fixed options, i.e. system
defaults that could NOT be overridden by the programmer or later methods
I am just replying to change the subject of this thread. I may be
mistaken, but I don't think this part has anything to do with assignments
in PL/I - but that someone just replied rather than starting a new
thread.
Williams, Pereto pereto.willi...@firstdata.com wrote in message
Others may have given you most of the answers that you want, but you should
check out:
Handling COBOL limitations with multithreading
at:
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igy3pg40/4.4.6
and
THREAD
at
I think that the facility that you are looking for would be met when/if IBM
actually provides the enhancement in the existing SHARE requirement:
SSLNGC0313587 New LE Callable Service to get (various) Program Names
Described as:
A new LE callable service (with capabilities well beyond
Not just for Enterprise COBOL, but for all languages that use an LE
run-time, it is now and has been for as long as I can remember
CRITICAL
that the run-time on all systems be at the highest level *before* you
start rolling out object code created by higher-level compilers.
This goes all the
are have a problem with LE, I
suggest that you consider this in your next contract renewal with that
vendor.
Steven Conway steven_con...@freddiemac.com wrote in message
news:ofb34441e3.b9f4c6b1-on852575d6.00453223-852575d6.00454...@freddiemac.c
om...
Bill Klein says:
sometimes, using the user friendly
Jim,
Has anyone asked (yet) WHY you want this? I know that in IBM-MAIN,
historically people (often systems programmers) don't like debugging
tools that get in the way of original dump information. However,
depending on what is causing the S0C4, it is possible that more - not less -
LE
Also, if you use any variation of TRAP(OFF), don't expect COBOL programs to
always confirm to the documented behavior - when unusual things happen.
Don Poitras sas...@sas.com wrote in message
news:4a32a3dd.5...@sas.com...
Ramiro Camposagrado wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:23:39 +0100, Jim
ILBOWAT0 should not be used under CICS (but unfortunately will work - if LE
is in the LPA). HOWEVER, CEE3DLY is available. See:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/CEEA3190/2.2.5.5.
1
Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote in message
When you are running this with BTS, are you ALSO using an interactive
language-specific debugger, e.g. Xpediter, Debug-Tool, or similar. (They all
have ways of running with BTS). If so, then I would trace when/how those
fields are getting correctly filled in under BTS in the program logic - and
Abso-tutely G
Check out
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/IGY3PG40/2.4.58
and
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igy3pg40/5.1
John McKown joa...@swbell.net wrote in message
news:listserv%200905220933575322.0...@bama.ua.edu...
On Fri, 22 May 2009
Especially for those using either the CICS or DB2 integrated coprocessor,
using SIZE(MAX) is a *bad* idea. Making it a non-modifiable compiler option
is a REALLY bad idea.
See:
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igy3cg40/2.53
and
For a discussion of the simplified TEST compiler option with Enterprise
COBOL V4.1, see:
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igy3mg40/5.5.5
Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.com wrote in message
news:4a16ea01.5010...@trainersfriend.com...
Jousma, David wrote:
XMLSS
Ted,
I don't know if you were kidding or not, but if you weren't,
Both the Customization Guide (for the installer) and the Programming Guide
(for the programmer) tell what IBM recommends for this. See the URL's in my
previous post.
Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote in message
The first think you need to do is to understand that you should post
messages via the List-Server and *not* via the Usenet newsgroup. For
subscription information, check the bottom of any post (such as this one)
that WAS sent via the list-server.
Mark mtt...@gmail.com wrote in message
The usual testing tool that corresponds to CEDF for IBM, is BTS (Batch
Terminal Simulator) that does NOT actually run in the IMS region. (It can
be set to work interactively with IBM's Debug Tool, Xpediter, or many other
interactive debugging tools) I don't know if it will give you what you
want
the most beneficial impact.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein at ix.netcom.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives
Forum section of the IBM COBOL Cafe. See:
http://www-949.ibm.com/software/rational/cafe/community/cobol/standard?view=
discussions
Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote in message
news:listserv%200905190056357954.0...@bama.ua.edu...
On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:56:05 -0500, Bill Klein wrote
Frank Swarbrick fswarbr...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:listserv%200905191643164240.0...@bama.ua.edu...
snip
By the way, any pointers on how to submit a marketing requirement? VSE
actually has a submit a requirement web page (https://www-
To expand on Howard's note:
1) Do you have existing VSE and existing z/OS applications (and in-house
expertise)?
2) Is this a single app that you need to migrate - while maintaining the
existing VSE environment, or is this a shop migration?
3) Are you migrating CICS, Batch, DL/I, DB2, or some
Kevin,
Why do you say that you MUST remove STOP RUN statements from (COBOL)
source in a VSE to z/OS conversion. There may be times and environments
that you may want to do this - and using GOBACK will never hurt, but I
seriously question the universal MUST remove statement.
If you are talking
I may (a while ago - in the past) have mislead Clark.
There is DEFINITELY a difference between coding
Block Contains 1
versus
omitting the Block CONTAINS clause
(for output files)
The former creates a RECFM=FB/BM file (with one record per block)
while
the latter produces a RECFM=F/V
I don't know about Clark submitting a requirement in the 90's, but there is
an existing SHARE requirement:
SSLNGC03003 Compiler option to make BLOCK CONTAINS clause SMS sensitive
(Part of the Description)
The current default for when the BLOCK CONTAINS x RECORDS clause is
omitted is for
John,
What happens if you run the exact same test, but instead of having the JCL
for your output as:
// RECFM=FB,LRECL=80,BLKSIZE=0,DSORG=PS
you instead JUST coded
// DSORG=PS
i.e. you leave out the JCL (overrides) for RECCFM, LRECL, and BLKSIZE) - I
think that this is
Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote in message
news:listserv%200905181607125082.0...@bama.ua.edu...
On Mon, 18 May 2009 18:18:20 +0200, Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote:
snip
Is default unblocked an ANSI Standard requirement? (Of course
this doesn't preclude an extension implemented via
Ted,
The issue that I think you are missing is that this entire conversation
started with a site trying to do a VSE to z/OS conversion. For this site,
this is a major concern. Certainly not the only one, but it is important
to understand exactly does happen/when/how under z/OS - so the
Frank Swarbrick fswarbr...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:listserv%200905151108397984.0...@bama.ua.edu...
On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:27:42 -0400, Thompson, Steve
steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote:
snip
It depends on if the file is pre-defined. If it is not, and I don't
include DCB
stuff on the
Are there any IMS systems programmers or even application programmers at
your shop? It seems to me that you are starting out of your depth. any
way, you may want to look at:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dfsisdf9/4.8.1
for JCL to start a MPR.
If you are actually
library into the region. Other than
that, I can't (personally) think of many (any?) reason to do it, but that
doesn't mean that some customer somewhere doesn't have a good reason to do
so.
David Crayford dcrayf...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:4a03e6c6.6090...@gmail.com...
Bill Klein wrote
(to IBM-MAIN and CICS lists),
I have asked this off-list but so far can't find an answer. Can anyone
tell me if Metal C is supported with (works under) CICS or not?
I can imagine that it would be pretty unusual to want this, but as HLASM
(both LE-enabled and not) works with CICS, I was thinking
I received the following note concerning the CodeGen problem in IBM-MAIN a
while ago.
Can someone in IBM-MAIN, please create a PMR for this?
Bill,
I apologize for the late reply.
Yes. please make a suggestion for a customer PMR in the IBM-MAIN list.
Again,
Absolutely doing static-link below the line should be your LAST choice.
Consider:
1) Change static calls to CALL identifier for 24-bit code (Don't change
DYNAM/NODYNAM compiler option) and use DATA(24).
2) As others have suggested, see if you need the assembler routines at all.
If they are
I will defer to Rick Arellanes (who has already replied) on this (and most
performance questions). HOWEVER, I do want to re-iterate that *if*
performance is of concern to you, the best general rule is to compile with
TRUNC(OPT)
and use
COMP-5
for specific fields that MAY have values larger
It looks as if Kelly posted this directly to the newsgroup and didn't send
it to the list.
See IBM response below.
Kelly Arrey kelly.ar...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:179d3e62-69d2-482c-99f1-0b74a830f...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Hi Johnny,
We're investigating - it looks like a
I have snipped all the content from this IBM-MAIN thread *and* have sent
this note to both IBM-MAIN and the Assembler list.
The question has been asked as to whether there is consolidated
information anywhere on IBM performance advice related to HLASM coding for
best pipeline performance.
The
Please do report back to the group when you get answers from your PMR.
One thing that you haven't mentioned is whether or not your are programs are
compiled with the COBOL AWO (or NOAWO) compiler option. This has
SIGNIFICANT impact on the processing of VB files. A change from what was
used for
I may be missing something, but if you know at compile-time (when you can
set an environment variable) that you want the output to go to SYSOUT, why
are you using files (with OPEN, WRITE, etc) and not just doing a DISPLAY
statement? Either that or call CEEMSG.
I think those are more normal ways
member and not currently registered for participating in the LNGC
project, then
follow the directions under the Member tab of the main SHARE website.
Let me know (Off-Line) if you have any problems with doing this.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein at ix.netcom.com
Call me confused,
If by MLE you are referring to Millennium Language Extensions, then I
don't know why you think this has ANYTHING to do with the level of z/OS (or
even LE) in use. This is a language specific feature and is dependent
upon the COMPILER (COBOL or PL/I) in use and NOT what
with that, then I
suggest that you contact SPC systems (if you haven't already). Going to
NOPRTEXIT *may* cause your problems if you actually do have Report Writer
programs to be compiled.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Klein [mailto:wmkl...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:03
The Enterprise COBOL compiler (usually) does not quietly S0C1 with no
messages if the region is too small. The one thing that I would check is
whether you have the compiler option SIZE(MAX) either explicitly or
implicitly specified. Check out
That actually raises an interesting question. As the limit of FD's is
larger than the limit of DD's allowed in a job step *AND* COBOL now supports
dynamic allocation, I wonder how COBOL would do if you did try to have more
than 3273 files opened at the same time?
I certainly wouldn't want to
FYI,
The NOTE statement actually was impacted by the LANGLVL compiler option.
Therefore, if you are converting OS/VS COBOL (or DOS/VS COBOL) code to a
currently supported compiler, you probably want to look this up - to make
certain that you comment the correct lines.
John P Kalinich
Given the recent discussions in IBM-MAIN and given the fact that the 2004
LNGC requirement asked for multiple things (including 64-bit COBOL), I have
created a new SHARE LNGC requirement:
SSLNGC09001 AMODE(64) COBOL that works with AMODE(31) COBOL
If you are a current LNGC project
(New but follow-on thread),
There are now and have been ever since the question was first raised at
least three different issues (IMHO).
1) The one that Clark and others have TRIED to communicate to IBM, but which
seems hard to convey - or at least difficult to hear that IBM understands is
the
OOPS, my idea won't work. It is the CEEROPT module itself that you are
trying to find what options are set.
I do not know of a dis-assembler for a CEEROPT load module.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Klein [mailto:wmkl...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 6:44 PM
Final thought (replying to myself, replying to myself G)
Code a small program that CALLs CEE3DMP, that program's output will show you
the run-time options in effect.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Klein [mailto:wmkl...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 6:53 PM
To: IBM
I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but at LE 1.9, you can
A) create a CEEROPT stand-alone module with
RPTOPTS(ON)
(You may or may not want to modify MSGFILE as well)
See:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ceea2180/1.9.2
B) place the resuliting load
I understand your desire for 64-bit COBOL.
I would suggest that if you WANT 64-bit COBOL, that you have your company
submit a marketing requirement and reference SHARE requirement:
SSLNGC0413607 Support 64 bit and web-oriented development in COBOL
Unless you want a 64-bit COBOL that can't
In comp.lang.cobol when someone first comes into the world of migrating
(converting) COBOL created files, we usually point them to Michael Mattias
EXCELLENT web page at:
http://www.talsystems.com/tsihome_html/downloads/C2IEEE.htm
The bottom-line (as others in the thread have hinted at) is that
Clark,
When you bring up Java, this confuses me. Currently IBM does all the
required conversion for floating point items shared between COBOL and Java
in a z/OS environment.
Do you have real-world evidence that this does isn't working.
***
As far as SHARE requirements go, Requirement
Denis Gäbler denisgaeb...@netscape.net wrote in message
news:8cb40acc0589804-abc-...@webmail-dx19.sysops.aol.com...
For video on demand databases are too slow.
You would use a streaming server, for which I don't know any available for
System z OS except VM Stairs.
In addition, a streaming
Clark,
Easy answer, there have been no recent changes to IBM's responses on
floating point (or bit) support.
Harder answer is that you keep getting confused about different terms and
requirements.
In the '02 Standard there are 3 new USAGEs
FLOAT-SHORT
FLOAT-LONG
FLOAT-EXTENDED
IBM (or
Do you know how the original file was created?
I would be interested if it was created by a COBOL program compiled with
NOAWO.
If so, you may want to make AWO an shop default (and/or non-modifiable
COBOL compiler option)
??? ?? ??? gad...@malam.com wrote in message
I haven't seen the actual problem code - but if it follows (normal) COBOL
rules, there would be a difference between:
LIST
ALL
(on two lines with no hyphen)
versus
LI
-ST all
(on two lines with a hyphen in column 7 of the continuation line).
One uses the hyphen to continue
The last that I heard (which was quite a while ago) if you tried using that
product on z/OS, it could work with line sequential (HFS) files but *NOT*
with normal QSAM files (and I am not even certain about VSAM KSDS or RRDS
files).
Kirk Wolf k...@dovetail.com wrote in message
This was supposed to go to the IBM-MAIN, not assembler list. Sorry about
that.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu]
On Behalf Of Bill Klein
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:33 AM
To: assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu
Subject
According to:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/eqa9ug00/5.1.4
It looks like you are doing this correctly. Assuming you are current on
maintenance, I would report this to the IBM support center (and reference
the documentation above).
Michael Bradley mjm...@yahoo.com
Hopefully, you mean
RECORD VARYING IN SIZE from 0 to 32767 depending on var-name
I do NOT think you can use RECORD CONTAINS with the DEPENDING onphrase.
John McKown joa...@swbell.net wrote in message
news:listserv%20081217160815.1...@bama.ua.edu...
I've always used:
RECORD CONTAINS 0
I am not positive of this, but I think you DO need the JCL override. If the
hard coded maximum LRECL in the FD does NOT match the maximum for the
physical file and you don't have the JCL override, I believe you will get a
file status of 39 when you OPEN the file indicating a physical file
Use of the
RECORD VARYING SIZE
in the FD phrase is valid for ALL organizations of files and does return the
record length during a READ.
??? ?? ??? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]..
.
Hi
One of our users is writing a program that reads a variable record
previous info snipped
One thing that MIGHT be causing problems/issues for some sites, is the fact
that Enterprise COBOL V4 does not have a full function version - as
Enterprise COBOL V3 did.
With V3, the full function version included Debug Tool (as did the PL/I
product)
With V4 of Enterprise
If you are pre-1.9 then look on line for posts that reference
ILBOWAT0
It does, require AMODE(24) but you can call an interface module to switch
from a main AMODE(31) program to it.
Farley, Peter x23353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
..
NB: This function (and
A couple of MINOR comments
1) The latest version/release of Enterprise COBOL is V4R1. Personally, I
can't think of any reason to go to V3R4 or lower.
2) Someone else has already pointed to the Migration Guide. I would
certainly review it for information on upgrading from an earlier version to
There have been lots of replies referencing the LE callable date routines.
Depending upon what type of date you are looking for, these may well be your
best answer.
HOWEVER,
If all you want to do is know what the offset is from GMT of where your
application is running, then you can easily just
John,
I don't have a solution for you (Other than, of course, how easy this
would be to do in COBOL G If you need a SORT and a report, COBOL
internal SORT with Report Writer would do this for you easily), but ...
Are you certain you don't have any
John Smith, Jr
or
Mary Brown, III
You don't say what programming language (much less what release/version of a
compiler) you are using.
If you are talking about COBOL, it is entirely possible to put as much or as
little as you might want - from either the Data Division *OR* the Procedure
Division.
If fact, if it is distinct set
previous notes snipped
With all the posts, I don't know if anyone has actually posted the
references for the full discussion on this topic in existing Migration
Guides.
If you previously used the OS/VS COBOL run-time library, please read:
Howard,
I don't know what release you want, but I tend to keep bunches of them.
Most recent - Enterprise COBOL V4R1
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/Shelves/igy3sh40
Last Version 3 URL
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/Shelves/IGY3SH33
These are
When you say
1 VS COBOL program
Do you mean VS COBOL II or OS/VS COBOL? If it is OS/VS COBOL, then this may
WELL be part of the problem.
However, for either VS COBOL II or OS/VS COBOL, was the program compiled
with RES or NORES? (You can use COBANAL or Edge Portfolio to find this
out). If
I don't know if this will help or not, but can you tell us:
A) is the (dynamically called subprogram in) Assembler is LE-conforming or
not?
B) Do you have any other COBOL (older) run-times in the steplib or the
joblib of the program?
C) Does anything in the C03 output tell you which dataset was
I agree that this is probably a compiler error. Or at least disagrees with
the documentation.
According to:
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/IGY3LR40/6.1.6.14
and
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/IGY3LR40/6.1.6.14.1
and
I think what you are looking for is at:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dfhp3c00/1.3.4.1
I am not positive that this matches my memory but what it shows there is
that BOTH EXEC CICS RETURN and GoBack are valid from a COBOL subprogram
entered via EXEC CICS LINK or
As others have indicated, I (mostly) doubt that the READ (rather than READ
INTO) is doing ANY manipulation of data. The one possible exception is if
you have the 01-level under the FD defined as a numeric or edited field -
and even then, I doubt that conversion takes place. (The other exception
The real question/issue is whether there is any OTHER set of COBOL routines
available in STEPLIB, Linklist, LPA, whatever. If *only * the LE library is
available and the correct re-linking of the OS/VS COBOL NORES program was
done (with the LE library), then no OC1 should occur. See:
I would think that posting this in
comp.lang.cobol
MIGHT bet a better answer than in IBM-MAIN
J. Chiampi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hello,
I have several questions about Cobol programs running on the Tandem
platform.
- What is the difference between
I just did a search of the LE 2.10 bookshelf at:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/Shelves/CEE1BK32
for
malloc csa
or
malloc ecsa
and found no hits.
Betsy,
Can you point me to the (LE) manual that you think said this? (I also
searched the current V1.9 manuals
It sounds like time to compile and run with SSRANGE turned on. This should
(easily?) catch the problem.
Schneiderwent, Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
You can have VS COBOL II modules linked with VS COBOL II and still run
them without VS COBOL II run-time
Rick,
yes and no ...
With the current PL/I compiler and with the DECIMAL(DFP) compiler option in
effect, then FLOAT DECIMAL does mean DFP. See:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ibm3pg60/1.1.1.28
With earlier versions of the Pl/I compiler (or lower ARCH levels)
There is ABSOLUTELY no way that you will get an Enterprise COBOL CICS
program to work if it is marked as AMODE(24). All the IGY and CEE
routines that it will need to run will have problems. You could get an
RMODE program, but that isn't what you are asking for.
If the programmer wants to force
If it was originally compiled with DYNAM, it wouldn't work with CICS any
way. It must already be NODYNAM.
NODYNAM doesn't force AMDOE(24) unless an AMDOE(24) program is statically
linked-in.
John P Kalinich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
John McKown of the IBM
to
correct what I said before others worried about it.
Bill Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
There is ABSOLUTELY no way that you will get an Enterprise COBOL CICS
program to work if it is marked as AMODE(24). All the IGY and CEE
routines that it will need to run
OK, I have looked at:
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/developer/application/features/inde
x.html?S_CMP=wspace
What possible use or relevance does RAD have for someone trying to do
COBOL/CICS development on the PC? It looks like it is totally Java
oriented. It doesn't have the COBOL,
Both officially and unofficially, MANY people have communicated to IBM that
WSED, then WDz, then RDz are VERY poorly documented or marketed to those
doing mainframe (or PC) development for the mainframe (or PC) but WITHOUT a
z/OS connection.
NOT speaking for IBM, it appears that the IBM internal
Graham,
Given the recent discussions on advertizing and the fact that I *used*
to (a decade ago) work for a 3rd party, what I would like to say, is hard
for me to phrase politically correctly.
First, let me say that from what I have heard RDz would do what you want -
but DOES require an upgrade
From other notes, it looks like the SCLM problem may NOT be a real problem,
HOWEVER,
I did want to remind any/all SHARE members who either have RDz or are
evaluating it, that the LNGC project of SHARE is now accepting (and
processing) SHARE requirements against RDz.
Please, if you are a
1 - 100 of 330 matches
Mail list logo
