Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-15 Thread Jon Butler
As stated, the ARCH(n) limits the assembler instructions the compiler can generate based on hardware capabilities. You won't get z14 vector register instructions with ARCH(11). Your debugger may in fact have a problem We just installed the latest PTFs for Expediter and have no ARCH(12) proble

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) [EXTERNAL]

2019-05-08 Thread Massimo Biancucci
aul Feller > AGT Mainframe Technical Support > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Brian Chapman > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 2:58 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: COBOL 6.2 and ARC

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-06 Thread John Abell
: Monday, May 06, 2019 1:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) I don't think this is an ARCH problem at all. I think the darned debugger is just plain buggy. You say the debugger is experiencing S0C4's (as well as S0C1's). I don't think an ARCH

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-06 Thread Charles Mills
problem, I think the debugger has a bug problem. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian Chapman Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 8:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) Charles, Thanks

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-06 Thread Brian Chapman
installation over to your older DR > machine? > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Brian Chapman > Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 6:13 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-06 Thread Charles Mills
AIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) I verified a few of my recent COBOL listings, and they all have ARCH(8) specified. Our applications developers claim that this issue only occurs when they run their code through the debugger. It apparently never occurs outside the debugger. Th

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-06 Thread Brian Chapman
sequence thereof. > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Allan Staller > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2019 8:35 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) > > The actu

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-06 Thread John Abell
viruses or any consequence thereof. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Allan Staller Sent: Monday, May 06, 2019 8:35 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) The actual arch level

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-06 Thread Allan Staller
The actual arch level should be somewhere in the Job listing from the Cobol Compile. HTH, -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John Abell Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2019 9:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) I am a bit

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-04 Thread John Abell
ssage- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 8:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) Is the abend in the user compiled instructions? Then check the compiler processor settings.

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-03 Thread TSpina
SmartTest giving you problems? Missing me? Most of the technical guys are gone. I think the only guy left is Ken someone or other. If it's Frank A. You're f'd. If you got a name let me know. Tom Spina On May 3, 2019, at 3:57 PM, Brian Chapman wrote: We have a vendor debugging product tha

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-03 Thread Mike Schwab
st [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Mark Zelden > Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 3:35 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) > > On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:57:34 -0400, Brian Chapman wrote: > > >We have a vendor debugging product t

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-03 Thread Charles Mills
ERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:57:34 -0400, Brian Chapman wrote: >We have a vendor debugging product that is constantly causing 0C1 and 0C4 >abends since we have upgraded to COBOL 6.2. It also caused these abends >when we were at COBOL 4,2, b

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-03 Thread Mark Zelden
On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:57:34 -0400, Brian Chapman wrote: >We have a vendor debugging product that is constantly causing 0C1 and 0C4 >abends since we have upgraded to COBOL 6.2. It also caused these abends >when we were at COBOL 4,2, but the abend rate has grown considerably after >the upgrade. > >

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) [EXTERNAL]

2019-05-03 Thread Brian Chapman
on to IBM would be in order. > > Thanks.. > > Paul Feller > AGT Mainframe Technical Support > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Brian Chapman > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 2:58 PM >

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) [EXTERNAL]

2019-05-03 Thread Feller, Paul
Feller AGT Mainframe Technical Support -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian Chapman Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 2:58 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12) [EXTERNAL] We have a vendor debugging

Re: COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-03 Thread Steve Thompson
Possibly. LE library routines may be smart enough to do that. But the compiler can’t do that in the case you compiled on a z14 to run on any lower level supported architecture. Sent from my iPhone — small keyboarf, fat fungrs, stupd spell manglr. Expct mistaks > On May 3, 2019, at 3:57 PM,

COBOL 6.2 and ARCH(12)

2019-05-03 Thread Brian Chapman
We have a vendor debugging product that is constantly causing 0C1 and 0C4 abends since we have upgraded to COBOL 6.2. It also caused these abends when we were at COBOL 4,2, but the abend rate has grown considerably after the upgrade. The vendor has produced countless patches, but so far they have