We're going with VLR(STANDARD) also. Any problems encountered with FILE-STATUS
04 will be treated as something that needs to be investigated.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists.
aging poor programming
techniques
Regards,
Greg Shirey
Ben E. Keith Company
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 6:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: migratin
compatible wrong length read behavior"
End-If
Close file2.
Goback.
HTH,
Greg Shirey
Ben E. Keith Company
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, Apri
.)
Frank
From: Greg Shirey
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: migrating compiler versions
The COBOL 5.1.1 Migration Guide contains an example of how to test for it.
Compile this program 4.2 and message “Incompatible wrong length read beha
behavior"
End-If
Close file2.
Goback.
HTH,
Greg Shirey
Ben E. Keith Company
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:50 PM
To:
present.
I cannot figure out how to create a situation where COBOL V4 returns status
'00' when there is a size mismatch. I always get '04'.
Frank From: Bernd Oppolzer
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: migrating compiler vers
In
,
on 04/01/2015
at 09:59 AM, Ken MacKenzie said:
>In the first release of COBOL 5, there was no AMODE(24) support.
>That has now been changed but it has led to several S0C4's as
>some of the compiler modules have not been "fixed".
Compiler or library? I can understand needing generated
At 00:21 +0200 on 04/02/2015, Bernd Oppolzer wrote about Re:
migrating compiler versions:
Hello Frank,
cited from earlier post:
Whereas in previous versions of ECOBOL a minimum and maximum record length
did not have to be specified when defining a variable file,
v5.1 will return a file
ly I am failing to understand the words.)
>From: Greg Shirey
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 9:00 AM
> Subject: Re: migrating compiler versions
>
> APAR PI22094 added a new compiler option -- VLR(COMPAT|STANDARD).
>
> Copied from
Hello Frank,
cited from earlier post:
Whereas in previous versions of ECOBOL a minimum and maximum record length
did not have to be specified when defining a variable file,
v5.1 will return a file status of '04' if any record is less than or greater
than the minimum / maximum specified.
so I th
situation that this is addressing. (I'm looking for examples,
not words, as obviously I am failing to understand the words.) From: Greg
Shirey
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: migrating compiler versions
APAR PI22094 added
Already using PDS/E for our "load libs" (thank goodness!).:-) From: Lizette
Koehler
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: migrating compiler versions
Big thing for going to V5 Cobol. Your Production jobs will need to have a PDS
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:59:52 +0100, Ken MacKenzie wrote:
>First off, before even considering ordering 5.2, convert all your load
>libraries to PDSE - as someone else stated, you have no option.
Cobol V5 includes information in the object modules that can only go
into a program object. Load module
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: migrating compiler versions
Whereas in previous versions of ECOBOL a minimum and maximum record length did
not have to be specified when defining a variable file, v5.1 will return a file
status of '04' if any record is less tha
Ken MacKenzie wrote:
>http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1PM93583
Nearly 2 year old APAR affecting 63 modules/macros? Thanks Ken for kindly
providing this link.
Much appreciated.
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
-
Street,
Dublin 4, Ireland.
From: Elardus Engelbrecht
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date: 01/04/2015 11:24
Subject:Re: migrating compiler versions
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Ken MacKenzie wrote:
>We are in the process of upgrading from COBOL 4.2 to
Ken MacKenzie wrote:
>We are in the process of upgrading from COBOL 4.2 to 5.1 and, let me tell you,
>it's been a nightmare.
It will be a nightmare.
One question to the OP: Are your COBOL programs calling to or are called from
other programs compiled in languages like C++, Assembler, PL/I, et
0
and registered office at 6th Floor, South Bank House, Barrow Street,
Dublin 4, Ireland.
From: Frank Swarbrick <002782105f5c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date: 01/04/2015 00:06
Subject:migrating compiler versions
Sent by:IBM
As always it depends.
We had decent COBOL standards in our shop and no programmer "funny
business" (no pushing the bounds). we dropped in every version of
COBOL and had very few issues we also had no issue with LE per se it
wasn't quite a no oops but pretty much.
One shop I was at hit pract
.
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:52 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: migrating compiler versions
>
> Does anyone have a goo
Use the migrate option on 4.2. It will flag those things not supported by COBOL
5.1. There should be an APAR for 5.2's changes that you should apply to your
4.2 compiler.
Next, IIRC, there is a migration guide. It will help in you getting there.
HTH
Sent from iPhone - small keyboard fat fing
Does anyone have a good list of best practices when migrating to a new version
of a compiler? While our shop is 35+ years old, we have rarely actually
migrated compilers (or even compiler versions), so we don't have a lot of
experience in this area.
When migrating from DOS/VS COBOL to VS COBOL
22 matches
Mail list logo
