Darren, That WOULD sound like a good SHARE requirement if it were true, however I see no indication at:
http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/igy3pg40/2.4.2 to support this claim. (Nor could I find it elsewhere in the current Enterprise COBOL documentation). Can you point me to something supporting this view? I went back thru some of the older bookshelves and couldn't find this restriction ever being true. "GAVIN Darren * OPS EAS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > The integrated translator does not support DLL mode compiles at all as > it completely overrides that option. It forces certain compile options > to be set that can interfere with using some of Cobol's advanced > features. It still has a ways to go. > > Darren > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul D'Angelo > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:54 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Fw: COBOL Compiler options > > If you are running the CICS Itegrated translator You should be fine. I > ran > it in a > previous installation and had no problems. > Your Application developers may not like it since it generates different > > source code > that a CICS program compiled with the Translator. > It was my application staff that couldnt adjust to the Intergrated > translator. > > > > > Bill Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> > 02/20/2008 01:47 PM > Please respond to > IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> > > > To > IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > cc > > Subject > Fw: COBOL Compiler options > > > > > > > Using the coprocessor is NOT exactly the same as running the > preprocessor > and then the compiler. As far as I know, there have been NO reports of > "different run-time" results from the two, but there are things that > using > the coprocessor can do that the preprocessor can't (see the Programming > Guide for details) e.g. > http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/IGY3PG40/3.1.2.2 > > > I would, however, check you LISTINGS to make certain that all the > "Options > in Effect" are the same with the two methods. It is possible that one > of > your compiler procs has different settings and this COULD impact > run-time > results. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > > In our shop, for CICS COBOL programs, we run the preprocessor > > DFHECP1$, then > > the compile step IGYCRCTL. > > I thought of bypassing the DFHECP1$ step by running the IGYCRCTL with > > 'CICS' in > > the parm. > > > > That was fine. > > > > Except, a co-worker pointed out to me that the generated object code > > differs, > > and, as such, is apprehensive. > > > > Does anyone know why that is? > > > > > > Thanks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
