Hi, Listers,
We seem to have hit a "show stopper" in our effort to implement COBOL v5.1
(upgrading from COBOL v4.2).
A collection of nightly batch jobs incurs sporadic, seemingly random S0C4
abends when the "main" program and a couple of subroutines are compiled with
the COBOL v5.1 compiler,
John,
Several years ago, We upgraded to z/os 1.11 from 1.9 and cobol 3 to cobol
4.1 (I think). Several of our production cobol jobs got S0C4 abends but not
on the 'test' LPAR which stayed 1.11. Turned out to be a combo of altered
base compiler options combined with several LE parms. Once we got t
We have had a lot of success with COBOL 5 but have had a few "edge cases" where
we've seen issues.
Since you mention OPT(1), one thing we've seen with COBOL 5 is that the calling
and called program parameter lists must be identical. Check and see if there is
a coding mistake where your calling
On 10/8/2014 8:35 PM, Brian Peterson wrote:
We have had a lot of success with COBOL 5 but have had a few "edge cases" where
we've seen issues.
Since you mention OPT(1), one thing we've seen with COBOL 5 is that
the calling and called program parameter lists must be identical. Check
and see if
> We seem to have hit a "show stopper" in our effort to implement
> COBOL v5.1 (upgrading from COBOL v4.2).
>
> A collection of nightly batch jobs incurs sporadic, seemingly random
> S0C4 abends when the "main" program and a couple of subroutines are
> compiled with the COBOL v5.1 compiler, wit
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jim Mulder
>
> > [ snip ]
>
> I reviewed your PMR and dumps, and made some suggestions in the PMR.
>
> Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY
Thank you, Sir. We'll run it by Change Control,
Cut-n-past to the list maybe?
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Chase, John wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jim Mulder
> >
> > > [ snip ]
> >
> > I reviewed your PMR and dumps, and made some suggestions in the PMR.
> >
> > Jim Mulder
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Keith Smith
>
> Cut-n-past to the list maybe?
I s'pose:
"something like
SLIP
SET,SA,RA=(25
Thank you! We are about to start looking at V5.1 for production and I am
accumulating a quick list for reference if we run into anything. We have
had success so far with the limited testing we have completed.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Chase, John wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > F
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Keith Smith
>
> Thank you! We are about to start looking at V5.1 for production and I am
> accumulating a quick list for
> reference if we run into anything. We have had success so far with the
> limited testing we h
'
> Subject: RE: Upgrade to Enterprise COBOL v5.1
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Keith Smith
> >
> > Cut-n-past to the list maybe?
>
> I s'pose:
>
> "something like
> SLIP
> SET,SA,RA=(25
I only had similar problems once in 2008 ca., but then subtasking was
involved
and APL etc., and there was some sort of race condition where one subtask
ran too fast and the POST/WAIT protocol dit not work ... ABEND S201,
IIRC ...
the error was in IBM code, not in ours.
The problem occured onl
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer
>
> I only had similar problems once in 2008 ca., but then subtasking was
> involved and APL etc., and there
> was some sort of race condition where one subtask ran too fast and the
> POST/WAIT protoco
13 matches
Mail list logo
