Had a similar problem once with an MVS upgrade. A (very savvy) user called up and reported getting a JCL with a very old job. On closer inspection he discovered some error with a comma. Job had run for years with no problem. Suddenly boom. Grin and move on.
I could see a larger issue with lots of COBOL programs being no laughing matter. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 9:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: Enterprise COBOL V6.2 I don't have the answer to that one. I imagine it's possible! But I don't believe there was any specific intent for this to "uncover bad code" in 6.1, so you'll probably just have to see what you run in to with 6.2. Frank ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Cameron Conacher <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL V6.2 Thanks Frank. I agree this is bad code. I was curious if the new COBOL 6.2 compiler would uncover any other bad code. I like that it is identified at compile time. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 21, 2017, at 11:55 AM, Frank Swarbrick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The error is not that there is a VALUE clause in the linkage section, but > rather the value clause now being allowed and respected, in conjunction with > the fact that the particular value clause is invalid. It should be VALUE > '1234', not VALUE 1234. You would get the same error in COBOL V4 and V5 if > the item had been in working-storage rather than linkage. > > You could use a compiler exit to "downgrade" the error to a warning, if you > are so inclined. > > Frank > > ________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on > behalf of Cameron Conacher <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 9:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL V6.2 > > Here is a snippet from someone else's observations: > Hi > Just wondering has anyone confronted this compile issue stated for COBOL 6.1? > > Version 6.1 > > > COBOL source code differences in Enterprise COBOL Version 6 > > In Enterprise COBOL V5 and earlier versions, a non-88 level VALUE > clause in the LINKAGE SECTION or FILE SECTION was treated as a > comment. However, starting in Enterprise COBOL V6.1, the VALUE clause > for LINKAGE SECTION and FILE SECTION items is now syntax checked and > has meaning. This means that a program that is compiled with RC=0 with > COBOL V5 could get RC=12 with COBOL V6. > > For example, with Enterprise COBOL V5 and earlier versions: > 000224 LINKAGE SECTION. > 000225 01 ALPH-ITEM PIC X(4) VALUE 1234. > > > ==000225==> IGYDS1158-I A non-level-88 "VALUE" clause was found in the > "FILE SECTION" or "LINKAGE SECTION". The "VALUE" clause was treated as > comments. > > With Enterprise COBOL V6: > > 000224 LINKAGE SECTION. > 000225 01 ALPH-ITEM PIC X(4) VALUE 1234. > > ==000225==> IGYGR1080-S A "VALUE" clause literal was not compatible > with the data category of the subject data item. The "VALUE" clause was > discarded. > > > Hope that helps > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 20, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Frank Swarbrick <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I'm not clear on what you are saying here. Can you give an example of both >> the code and the error message? >> >> ________________________________ >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on >> behalf of Cameron Conacher <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 2:43 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL V6.2 >> >> Hello everyone. >> COBOL 6.1 introduced a "feature" where VALUE clauses that are used >> for initialization are flagged as errors. >> Ever since I began using COBL in the seventies, this would be treated >> as a warning. >> Personally, I consider it bad form, but the compiler happily marched on. >> We have a number of COPYBOOKs that are occasionally used in LINKAGE, >> and these items have raised issues during recompiles. >> Nothing terrible, but still a bump in the development road. >> >> Are there any new features like this in COBOL 6.2? >> >> Thanks, >> >> .......Cameron >> >>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Tim Deller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> "Conditional complication"? >>> Sounds about right... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
