(IBM) Enterprise COBOL, Earlier COBOL's, LE - and SEARCH ALL

A while back, there was a lot of discussion (in both IBM-MAIN and
comp.lang.cobol) about "changes in run-time behavior" of both newly compiled
 and
NOT re-compiled COBOL programs using SEARCH ALL.

The latest IBM Enterprise COBOL "Migration Guide" now has an entire chapter 
on
this topic and I would hope that it addresses the needs (and confusion) of a
ll
concerned about this.  (If you are NOT a "systems programmer" - you will
probably want to have your SysProg check APAR levels for both your COBOL and
 LE
products)

For full (and excruciating <G> ) details, see:

http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-...KS/IGY3MG31/5.4

NOTE WELL (for SysProgs)
As far as I can tell, there is no COBOL or LE ++HOLD information on the
relevant APARs.  I would be happy to be corrected on this perception - if I 
am
in error.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

William M. Klein wrote:
> A while back, there was a lot of discussion (in both IBM-MAIN and
> comp.lang.cobol) about "changes in run-time behavior" of both newly compil
ed and
> NOT re-compiled COBOL programs using SEARCH ALL.
>
> The latest IBM Enterprise COBOL "Migration Guide" now has an entire chapte
r on
> this topic and I would hope that it addresses the needs (and confusion) of
 all
> concerned about this.  (If you are NOT a "systems programmer" - you will
> probably want to have your SysProg check APAR levels for both your COBOL a
nd LE
> products)
>
> For full (and excruciating <G> ) details, see:
>
>  http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-...KS/IGY3MG31/5.4
>
> NOTE WELL (for SysProgs)
>    As far as I can tell, there is no COBOL or LE ++HOLD information on the
> relevant APARs.  I would be happy to be corrected on this perception - if 
I am
> in error.

Oy!

I wonder which way COBOL for VSE works...

Frank