2017 10:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to call VS COBOL II RES program from COBOL V5.2-enabled
assembler?
For the archive, reporting back on gotcha's as promised.
While testing the CEEPIPI interface I ran into this problem:
1. Initialize CEEPIPI environment (init_subr
for subsequent calls.
I also did some limited testing with a small date-processing COBOL subroutine
compiled with LE COBOL V5.2, LE COBOL V4.2, VS COBOL II linked with SCEELKED
IGZEBST and VS COBOL II linked with VS COBOL II IGZEBST. I experimented with
NOT terminating the CEEPIPI environment (initia
M
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to call VS COBOL II RES program from COBOL V5.2-enabled
assembler?
>EXEC PGM=ASM1 (LOAD and CALL)--> VSCOB2RES
>Also:;ASM1 (LOAD and CALL via CEEPIPI)--> eCOBOL52
>Two different CAL's in one top-level assembler program to COBOL
real-world programs.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 9:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to call VS COBOL II RES program from COBOL V5.2-en
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 7:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to call VS COBOL II RES program from COBOL V5.2-enabled
assembler?
On 30 May 2017 at 20:44, Farley, Peter x23353
wrote:
> I can call the VS COBOL II RES prog
On 30 May 2017 at 20:44, Farley, Peter x23353
wrote:
> I can call the VS COBOL II RES program multiple times if I first LOAD and
> call IGZERRE once (the LE version from CEE.SCEERUN), but
> using IGZERRE and CEEPIPI together is not allowed either according to the
> migration guide (cannot establ
lled multiple times in one execution of ASM1.
>My question was prompted by the eCOBOL V5.2 migration statement that COBOL
>V5.2 programs can call and be called by VS COBOL II RES programs. I cannot
They can! Not all kinds of CALLs (example: DLL CALLs) but most CALLs.
You are not talking about CO
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 8:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to call VS COBOL II RES program from COBOL V5.2-enabled
assembler?
EXEC PGM=ASM1
ion of ASM1.
My question was prompted by the eCOBOL V5.2 migration statement that COBOL V5.2
programs can call and be called by VS COBOL II RES programs. I cannot use
CEEPIPI to CALL the VS COBOL II RES program because CEEPIPI returns RC=20 when
you try to add it to the CEEPIPI table.
I can
required
modules. I am not sure why this may not work.
Lizette
-Original Message-
>From: "Farley, Peter x23353"
>Sent: May 30, 2017 4:41 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: How to call VS COBOL II RES program from COBOL V5.2-enabled assembler?
>
>The COB
The COBOL V5.2 Migration Guide (GC14-7383-03) says:
"Enterprise COBOL V5 programs can dynamically call (and be dynamically called
by) VS COBOL II RES programs."
If I have an existing assembler program which calls a VS COBOL II RES program
after calling the older COBOL environment set
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:27:36 -0800, Tom Ross
wrote:
> )? (Msg IGYOS4021-W)
>
>>We are beginning the transition to COBOL V5.2 from V4.2 and exploring the n=
>>ew options available for debugging.
>
>>We just discovered that the INITCHECK option is incompatible with O
)? (Msg IGYOS4021-W)
>We are beginning the transition to COBOL V5.2 from V4.2 and exploring the n=
>ew options available for debugging.
>We just discovered that the INITCHECK option is incompatible with OPTIMIZE(=
>0). Using both options generates this warning-level message:
Friday, January 27, 2017 12:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL V5.2 question: INITCHECK option incompatible with
OPTIMIZE(0)? (Msg IGYOS4021-W)
"Actually, Tom Ross in his migration presentation recommends this procedure:..."
Yes, unfortunately that was May 2016,
"Actually, Tom Ross in his migration presentation recommends this procedure:..."
Yes, unfortunately that was May 2016, and INITCHECK appeared in September 2016.
The reference I was making was to the V6.1 Migration Guide. The advice seems
not to be in the MG for V5.2, although INITCHECK is there
Thanks Jeffrey. I will pass that on here.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Holst, Jeffrey A
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 9:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL V5.2 question: INITCHECK option
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL V5.2 question: INITCHECK option incompatible with
OPTIMIZE(0)? (Msg IGYOS4021-W)
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:56:27 -0600, Mike Schwab wrote:
>Initially, the numeric / zero checks would not work like before. I
>know there is an parm to make i
ology and Operations, Shared Services
Whitehall Service Center 2
(614) 856-5443
--
Date:Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:25:00 -0500
From:"Farley, Peter x23353"
Subject: COBOL V5.2 question: INITCHECK option incompatible with OPTIMIZE(0)?
(Msg IGYOS4021-W)
We ar
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:56:27 -0600, Mike Schwab wrote:
>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
>Migr
Although I can't see it documented, I suspect that INITCHECK can only be
offered as a side-effect of the complex analysis which is already done for the
higher levels of optimisation, and which is not done at the lowest level of
optimisation (OPT(0)). The message is probably correct, but the rela
hursday, 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 n
ginal 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 su
o pay for 4.2 AND 5.2/6.1.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Farley, Peter x23353
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
> OPTI
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"
- Yes, ARCH(11) for z13
- We found a program (only one) that needed 1.7GB to compile. And a lot of them
requiring up to 600MB. So we use REGION=0M & IEFUSI.
- CANCEL sentence when mixing 4.2 & 5.2 do not free used memory under certain
circumstances. We opened some PMR about this, but still havi
You will need to maintain compatibility with your lowest level of
hardware, prime or DR.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Bill Woodger wrote:
> Why wouldn't ARCH(11) give the best performance? V5.2 has it? Of course, has
> to be for a z13.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about REGION=0M. At least
Why wouldn't ARCH(11) give the best performance? V5.2 has it? Of course, has to
be for a z13.
I'm not sure what you mean about REGION=0M. At least 200M will be needed, more
for large programs. See here:
http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSQ2R2_9.0.0/com.ibm.ent.cbl.zos.doc/migrate/igym
Are there no internal IBM methods of asking?
There's the COBOL Cafe at the Compile Cafe:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=----2281&p,
a couple of compiler developers visit. There's also some advice posted there,
and elsewhere.
If the
- Test(DWARF): Increase size in library but not in memory, debug data is only
loaded at error/abend time.
- Best CPU usage if using Arch(9/10) on execution.
- Worst compile CPU/Time/Storage. REGION=0M, IEFUSI, ...
- Take an eye on latest maintenance, specially LE.
- Be aware of Arch level for your
gt;>> My customer wants to start the migration to Enterprise COBOL V5.2. I know
>>> V6.1 is out but we need to get going on this project. I have deleted all
>>> COBOL compilers below Enterprise COBOL V4.2 from their systems. I worked
>>> with an applications represent
:40:42 -0400
> From: strau...@us.ibm.com
> Subject: Migration to Enterprise COBOL V5.2
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> My customer wants to start the migration to Enterprise COBOL V5.2. I know
> V6.1 is out but we need to get going on this project. I have deleted all
&g
> less CPU programs, at expense of more memory / I/O.
>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Paul Strauss wrote:
>> My customer wants to start the migration to Enterprise COBOL V5.2. I know
>> V6.1 is out but we need to get going on this project. I have deleted all
>> CO
ise COBOL V5.2. I know
> V6.1 is out but we need to get going on this project. I have deleted all
> COBOL compilers below Enterprise COBOL V4.2 from their systems. I worked
> with an applications representative and they have decided on the compiler
> options they want. Load library conver
My customer wants to start the migration to Enterprise COBOL V5.2. I know
V6.1 is out but we need to get going on this project. I have deleted all
COBOL compilers below Enterprise COBOL V4.2 from their systems. I worked
with an applications representative and they have decided on the compiler
-Original Message-
>From: Gary Snider
>Sent: Aug 3, 2015 12:15 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: COBOL V5.2
>
>Hi,
>We are testing out COBOL V5.2 and have found several problems. Just wondering
>how many of you are running COBOL V5.2 and if you are havin
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Gary Snider
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 3:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: COBOL V5.2
Hi,
We are testing out COBOL V5.2 and have found several problems. Just wondering
how many of you are running COBOL V5.2 and i
Hi,
We are testing out COBOL V5.2 and have found several problems. Just wondering
how many of you are running COBOL V5.2 and if you are having a similar
experience.
Thanks, Gary
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
37 matches
Mail list logo
