Initially, the numeric / zero checks would not work like before. I know there is an parm to make it work like before in 6.1. Not sure if they applied it to 5.2.
IBM Cobol Documentation page. Click on Version (6.1) then download Migration guide. Compare to 5.2 guide. http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27036733 & download PDF. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 <peter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote: > Not my call, unfortunately. Mgmt decision already made more than several > levels above me. > > If there are any docs out there (preferably slide-type presentations suitable > for mgmt) with technical justification(s) that could help change the > decision, I'd appreciate pointers. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Mike Schwab > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:20 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: COBOL V5.2 question: INITCHECK option incompatible with > OPTIMIZE(0)? (Msg IGYOS4021-W) > > I would suggest getting 6.1 then converting. IBM made some changes that > eliminate some situations that need coding changes. Should be the same > license cost, just cost you install time. Be sure to convert to Country > Multiplex / MSU licensing so you don't have a limited time before having to > pay for 4.2 AND 5.2/6.1. > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 > <peter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote: >> We are beginning the transition to COBOL V5.2 from V4.2 and exploring the >> new options available for debugging. >> >> We just discovered that the INITCHECK option is incompatible with >> OPTIMIZE(0). Using both options generates this warning-level message: >> >> IGYOS4021-W The "INITCHECK" option was discarded due to option conflict >> resolution. The "OPTIMIZE(0)" option took precedence. >> >> There is no restriction documented for INITCHECK in the V5.2 Programmer's >> Guide and no mention of this incompatibility in the section on incompatible >> compiler options either. >> >> Is this a maintenance issue? Are we missing a PTF or was there a PTF >> applied that introduced the restriction without updating the documentation? >> If the latter, a pointer to the PTF documentation would be appreciated. >> >> Peter > -- > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If > the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized > representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail > and delete the message and any attachments from your system. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
