We are on Z 1.4 and COBOL Rel 3.2.0 The Simple Compile and Go below
Allows me to add 1 to 'ABC' and get 124 with no S0C7. Is this normal?
Did this test with NUMPROC(NOPFD), NUMPROC(PFD), and NUMPROC(MIG).
All were successful.
//ZCRSCEJA JOB (DAZC1130,ZCRSCEJ),'COBOL4MVS IVP',
//
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:48:28 -0500 JONES, CHARLIE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
:We are on Z 1.4 and COBOL Rel 3.2.0 The Simple Compile and Go below
:Allows me to add 1 to 'ABC' and get 124 with no S0C7. Is this normal?
:Did this test with NUMPROC(NOPFD), NUMPROC(PFD), and NUMPROC(MIG).
:All were
easiest to tell from the generated code but I suspect the cause is the lack
of sign for pic 999. COBOL seems to force the sign to x'Fx' before it adds
or subtracts anything.
77 COUNTERX PIC 999 VALUE 0.
01 BAD-NUMBERPIC 999.
01 BAD-SPACE
Instead of MOVE 'ABC' try MOVE SPACES
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:48:28 -0500, JONES, CHARLIE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We are on Z 1.4 and COBOL Rel 3.2.0 The Simple Compile and Go below
Allows me to add 1 to 'ABC' and get 124 with no S0C7. Is this normal?
Did this test with NUMPROC(NOPFD),
@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Why No S0C7?
We are on Z 1.4 and COBOL Rel 3.2.0 The Simple Compile and Go below
Allows me to add 1 to 'ABC' and get 124 with no S0C7. Is this normal?
Did this test with NUMPROC(NOPFD), NUMPROC(PFD), and NUMPROC(MIG).
All were successful.
//ZCRSCEJA JOB (DAZC1130,ZCRSCEJ
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:28:31 -0700, Rankin, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The source data contains a valid sign. You will only get a S0C7 abend for
an
invalid sign.
Or an invalid numeric But you are still correct because the data
also contains valid numerics. As someone pointed out,
Neither COBOL nor IBM's COBOL *guarantee* a S0C7 (or other abnormal
termination) when you reference incompatible data - all they promise is
results are undefined.
Having said that, try your sample with both ZWB and NOZWB. See:
7 matches
Mail list logo