On Saturday, 2 April 2016 23:12:42 UTC+1, Bill Woodger wrote:
...
>
> If it *could* be NULL (you CALL your program from another program, perfectly
> possible, no messing about with "main" programs for COBOL on an IBM
> Mainframe), then you said "if the field does not have an address, move one
02, 2016 3:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):COBOL Rookie Problem
That would be me.
The semi-colon, like the comma in code, is just "noise". It has absolutely no
affect on anything.
Consider this line:
MOVE ; ; ; ; ; CPRIME , , , , TO , ; , ; , ARRAY-SIZE
Tha
m Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> 626-302-7535 Office
> robin...@sce.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 5:09
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 5:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL Rookie Problem
An update for anyone who cares. My motivation was to get a preview of how real
application programs might benefit from ABO. As an electric utility, we have
millions of customers and millions
javascript:;>
> >
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> <javascript:;>] On
> > Behalf Of Bill Woodger
> > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 1:04 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <javascript
DU] On
> Behalf Of Bill Woodger
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 1:04 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):COBOL Rookie Problem
>
> I know what you're saying, and would normally agree where "incremental"
> performance benefits were expected - knocking u
:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):COBOL Rookie Problem
I know what you're saying, and would normally agree where "incremental"
performance benefits were expected - knocking up a couple of test programs may
not reflect what would normally occur.
However, this i
53.8429
f 616.653.2717
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 6:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: COBOL Rookie Problem
I'm writing my first COBOL program in decades. It's not
It doesn't display as one. It displays as X'0001F1?0?0' . It will just look
like one on casual inspection (if the ?s allow, and I suspect they will be
zeros, which will allow).
"Why doesn't it abend in doing the PERFORM iterate TIMES?" is the next question.
Because he's using compiler option
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, at 01:13, Bill Woodger wrote:
> X'0001F1' where the ? have the numeric as 0, gives you your 01100 in
> iterate, once it has been packed (prior to becoming binary) to use in the
> TIMES.
Why did it DISPLAY as 1 though?
--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
I know what you're saying, and would normally agree where "incremental"
performance benefits were expected - knocking up a couple of test programs may
not reflect what would normally occur.
However, this is far from incremental. V4 generates "ESA" machine-code. ABO can
do ARCH 10 or 11. In the
On 01/04/2016 06:26 PM, Bill Woodger wrote:
Andrew, I don't think it would be difficult at all. Especially for ARCH 11,
there's some substantial differences in that example of what code would be
possible (with V5 or V6), so it will be interesting to see if the ABO takes
full advantage.
I'm
The suggestion was based on not seeing or expecting any change with IO for
ABO'ed programs. COBOL IO is through routines, which very quickly end up at
QSAM, or whatever. There's nothing in V5 or V6 to indicate improvement in
performance for IO directly. I didn't see anything for ABO either,
Andrew, I don't think it would be difficult at all. Especially for ARCH 11,
there's some substantial differences in that example of what code would be
possible (with V5 or V6), so it will be interesting to see if the ABO takes
full advantage.
Obviously there are untolled millions of
On 1/04/2016 11:46, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm not much interested in efficiency. I want
a program that does lots of I/O and calculations to see what benefit we could
get from ABO.
It's an interesting exercise, but I'm not sure how useful your results
would
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Bill Woodger
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 5:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):COBOL Rookie Problem
And change the PARM= to 1 if you want to define it as a five
And change the PARM= to 1 if you want to define it as a five-byte numeric
in your program.
X'0001F1' where the ? have the numeric as 0, gives you your 01100 in
iterate, once it has been packed (prior to becoming binary) to use in the TIMES.
Unless you are going to use very large files
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Bill Woodger
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):COBOL Rookie Problem
An change the USING to parm-stuff
, March 31, 2016 4:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):COBOL Rookie Problem
Your definition of the parm in the LINKAGE SECTION is incorrect. It must be
preceded by two bytes, which is the length of the PARM.
01 parm-stuff.
05 FILLER PIC XX.
05 iterate PIC 9(5
.
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> 626-302-7535 Office
> robin...@sce.com
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MA
An change the USING to parm-stuff.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Your definition of the parm in the LINKAGE SECTION is incorrect. It must be
preceded by two bytes, which is the length of the PARM.
01 parm-stuff.
05 FILLER PIC XX.
05 iterate PIC 9(5).
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: COBOL Rookie Problem
Skip, I would need to see the invoking JCL and the COBOL definition
I assume you don't know why it happens 1100 times.
I assume the program is EXEC PGM=? Or are you running it from TSO?
You have a value in "iterate". Exactly what you have will depend on the
definition, and the PARM that you have given.
You are attempting to give a value of 1 to iterate,
inson
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 6:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: COBOL Rookie Problem
I'm writing my first COBOL program in decades. It's not supposed to do anything
important, but it's not a toy. I need a program that chews up CPU in order to
try out ABO (Automatic Binary Optimizer).
I'm writing my first COBOL program in decades. It's not supposed to do anything
important, but it's not a toy. I need a program that chews up CPU in order to
try out ABO (Automatic Binary Optimizer). I started with a REXX and am now
rewriting in COBOL 4.2. It's not doing what I want, which is
26 matches
Mail list logo
