Clarke Morris wrote:
begin extract
The problem is not the compiler options used for the COBOL generation
of CSP programs, the problem is the compiler options of the programs
that use the output from CSP programs.
/end extract
and I disagree. The problem here is one of incoherence. All of the
On Feb 13, 2014, at 9:24 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
Clarke Morris wrote:
SNIP--
John Gilmore replied:
More generally, the traditional COBOL-shop aversion to recompiling is
one that urgently needs to be discarded. It was never sensible, and
it is no
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:24:44 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
Clarke Morris wrote:
begin extract
The problem is not the compiler options used for the COBOL generation
of CSP programs, the problem is the compiler options of the programs
that use the output from CSP programs.
/end extract
and I
If other programs that handle files created by CSP (and maybe its
successors) were using NUMPROC(MIG) because it was more efficient than
NUMPROC(NOPFD), then those programs may have to be recompiled with
NUMPROC(NOPFD) because there can be problems. I ran into that with a
program that for
On 13 Feb 2014 09:35:50 -0800, tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com (Tom Ross)
wrote:
If other programs that handle files created by CSP (and maybe its
successors) were using NUMPROC(MIG) because it was more efficient than
NUMPROC(NOPFD), then those programs may have to be recompiled with
NUMPROC(NOPFD)
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:47:42 -0400, Clark F Morris wrote:
... CSP and possibly its successor forced an F zone on all
signed fields with positive values leaving the D zone for negative
fields. The elimination of NUMPROC(MIG) means this behavior if still
existing can cause problems.
...
Paul Gilmartin's point has merit; but, as usual, the details matter.
Mike Cowlishaw's design of the [now IEEE-standard] z/Architecture
decimal floating-point (DFP) format
1) distinguishes -0.0e+000 from +0.0e+000, and
2) ensures that they compare equal architecturally.
The distinction is useful
If your shop uses an IBM z series computer and it is looking to
upgrade to version 5.1 of Enterprise COBOL and it is using Cross
System Product (CSP) or its Visual Gen successor, migration may be a
problem. CSP and possibly its successor forced an F zone on all
signed fields with positive values
On 12 Feb 2014 13:59:28 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
If your shop uses an IBM z series computer and it is looking to
upgrade to version 5.1 of Enterprise COBOL and it is using Cross
System Product (CSP) or its Visual Gen successor, migration may be a
problem. CSP and possibly its
If your shop uses an IBM z series computer and it is looking to
upgrade to version 5.1 of Enterprise COBOL and it is using Cross
System Product (CSP) or its Visual Gen successor, migration may be a
problem. CSP and possibly its successor forced an F zone on all
signed fields with positive values
10 matches
Mail list logo
