Cobol - cobol12

Author

cobol12

John Sampson

2005-05-10, 8:55 am

cobol12 is a newly available freeware compiler
which is found at www.homepages.paradise.net.nz/jsoeberg/ Has anyone on
this group any comment on this compiler.
--
John Sampson

epc8@juno.com

2005-05-10, 8:55 pm

epc8@juno.com wrote:
> John Sampson wrote:
anyone[color=darkred]
> on
>
> Yes, it crashes on trying to compile or run my simple test programs.
If
> you are looking for a free compiler a better bet is to go to
> http://www.adtools.com/student/ register and download Fujitsu Cobol
> version 3.

On additional testing, it requires data names to start in area B but
does not flag errors if this is not so. In addition, at runtime the
program may crash or behave unexpectedly.

Also having a FD which contains only a group (level 01) item is
ineffective. Nothing is written to the output file unless there is at
least one elementary item below.

Do these two constraints actually adhere to a strict (or low level)
version of the 74 standard?

William M. Klein

2005-05-10, 8:55 pm

I think (but haven't checked) that data-names in the B-margin *was* a
restriction of the '74 Standard, i.e

01 THIS-ITEM. ....

The "T" had to be in the B-margin.

There certainly wasn't any requirement for there to be elementary items under an
FD - but I don't understand how you can have a "group item with an 01-level -
with no items under it". If it has a PICTURE CLAUSE it is NOT a group item and
if doesn't have a PICTURE clause (and is a group-item) then it WOULD need an
elementary item under it.

FYI,
Neither the '74 or '85 Standard had any requirements about flagging syntax
errors (believe it or not).

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
<epc8@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1115531071.327354.66550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> epc8@juno.com wrote:
> anyone
> If
>
> On additional testing, it requires data names to start in area B but
> does not flag errors if this is not so. In addition, at runtime the
> program may crash or behave unexpectedly.
>
> Also having a FD which contains only a group (level 01) item is
> ineffective. Nothing is written to the output file unless there is at
> least one elementary item below.
>
> Do these two constraints actually adhere to a strict (or low level)
> version of the 74 standard?
>

epc8@juno.com

2005-05-10, 8:55 pm

> > epc8@juno.com wrote:
programs.[color=darkred]
Cobol[color=darkred]
but[color=darkred]
at[color=darkred]

William M. Klein wrote:[color=darkred]
> I think (but haven't checked) that data-names in the B-margin *was* a

> restriction of the '74 Standard, i.e
>
> 01 THIS-ITEM. ....
>
> The "T" had to be in the B-margin.

I guess I've been spoiled by extensions then.

>
> There certainly wasn't any requirement for there to be elementary
items under an
> FD - but I don't understand how you can have a "group item with an
01-level -
> with no items under it". If it has a PICTURE CLAUSE it is NOT a
group item and
> if doesn't have a PICTURE clause (and is a group-item) then it WOULD
need an
> elementary item under it.
>

Ooops. That's what I get for posting late at night. :-). What I meant
was that if the FD has only an 01-level

FD OUTFILE
..........
01 OUTREC PIC 9(5).

then nothing gets written to the output file - the file contains 0
bytes. But

FD OUTFILE
..........
01 OUTREC.
02 OUTNUM PIC 9(5).

does work. (In the first case data is moved to OUTREC and in the second
case to OUTNUM.)

> FYI,
> Neither the '74 or '85 Standard had any requirements about flagging
syntax
> errors (believe it or not).

Ouch. And the resulting program is free to do as it pleases???

("The behavior of a non standard conforming program is undefined.")

Chuck Stevens

2005-05-11, 3:55 pm

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:DThfe.190137$R24.133237@fe05!news.easynews.com...
> I think (but haven't checked) that data-names in the B-margin *was* a
> restriction of the '74 Standard, i.e
>
> 01 THIS-ITEM. ....
>
> The "T" had to be in the B-margin.

Yes, the record-name or item-name of an 01-level or 77-level item had to be
in area B.
ANSI X3.23-1974 page I-107, 5.8.4 Data Division Entries, seventh paragraph.

> There certainly wasn't any requirement for there to be elementary items
under an
> FD - but I don't understand how you can have a "group item with an
01-level -
> with no items under it". If it has a PICTURE CLAUSE it is NOT a group
item and
> if doesn't have a PICTURE clause (and is a group-item) then it WOULD need
an
> elementary item under it.

Yes. Ibid. page I-84, 5.3.3.2.1, Level numbers, allows for group items and
for elementary items. A record may be either. But a data item in this
context has to be either a group item or an elementary item. If it lacks
subordinate items and thus doesn't qualify as a group item, and it lacks
sufficient description to mark it as elementary (e.g., PICTURE or something
like USAGE INDEX), then what the data item is is outside the rules of
standard COBOL.

-Chuck Stevens

Sponsored Links