>From my reading, I thought IBM mentioned overhead for the INITIALIZE verb , I haven't used it..and would like to know..
Scott On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 7:48 AM Clark Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > [Default] On 22 Jul 2017 18:31:37 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > [email protected] (Steve Thompson) wrote: > > >And what happens when the program gets called with a "zero" parm? > > Unless an INITIALIZE statement were issued for that field, nothing > would happen. The VALUE clause on a data item in the FELE SECTION and > LINKAGE SECTION is used in conjunction with the INITIALIZE statement > and not to se an initial value. > > Clark Morris > > > >One would hope that it gets a S0C4-4 for attempting to initialize > >PSA, because if it manages to pickup a random value to base that > >01, who knows what gets overlaid. > > > >But then, I don't have access to COBOL6.2 yet so I can test this. > > > >Regards, > >Steve Thompson > > > >On 07/20/2017 06:08 PM, Frank Swarbrick wrote: > >> I'm still not sure exactly what you are saying, but I will say this. > Prior to Enterprise COBOL V6 an item within the linkage section that had a > VALUE clause would generate a warning. I believe this is what you stated. > But now it's not even a warning. It's certainly not an error, which is the > part that is throwing me. > >> > >> The reason why it was a warning prior to V6 is because it "had no > meaning" when present. It didn't actually set those fields to those > values, because linkage section items have no storage behind them until > they are given addressability either to an item passed to it via a CALL, or > explicitly set via a SET ADDRESS statement. > >> > >> With COBOL V6 however, while all the above is still true, there is in > fact now the possibility of using the INITIALIZE statement to set a linkage > section item to the value specified in the value clause. For this reason > they have eliminated the warning. > >> > >> Take the following example: > >> > >> identification division. > >> program-id. initval. > >> data division. > >> linkage section. > >> 01 my-group. > >> 05 with-value pic 9 value 1. > >> 05 without-value pic 9. > >> 05 filler pic 9 value 2. > >> 05 filler pic 9. > >> > >> procedure division using my-group. > >> initialize my-group > >> with filler > >> all to value > >> then to default > >> display my-group > >> goback. > >> end program initval. > >> > >> > >> The new "ALL TO VALUE" clause of the INITIALIZE statement instructs > COBOL to initialize the group to the value in the VALUE clause, if one is > specified. The output of the above program, when called from another > program passing a 4 byte field, is "1020". with-value and the first filler > item are both set to their corresponding "values". The other two are set > to the default value for their data type; 0 in both cases because they are > numeric fields. > >> > >> This doesn't appear to answer your concern, but I bring it up both > because it is true and because it is useful! :-) > >> > >> Frank > >> ________________________________ > >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on > behalf of Frank Swarbrick <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 3:25 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL V6.2 > >> > >> 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 > >>> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >> > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Scott Ford IDMWORKS z/OS Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
