[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference orarep::nomahs::repository

Title:	Oracle CDD/Repositorynce
Notice:	Current versions are V7.0-01 and V6.1-03eld Test 3
Moderator:	8292::PJACOBN

Created:	Thu Jan 21 1993
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1094
Total number of notes:	4913

1081.0. "cobol-e-numlong with large initial value" by 5150::KLEIN () Wed Apr 16 1997 11:25

VMS V6.2 AXP
CDD V6.1-03 and V7.0
COBOL V2.4-863

Customer is getting COBOL-E-NUMLONG when including a record from dictionary 
with a field containing a large initial value (> 999999999).
According to the customer (I don't have the versions running here anymore)
he could compile his program successfully with CDD V5.3 and DEC COBOL V2.3-793.

    02  BIGFIELD_Q          PIC S9(11)V9(2) COMP VALUE IS 91540398400843284.49.
..........................................................^
%COBOL-E-NUMLONG, More than 18 digits in numeric literal
at line number 13 in file USER1:[KLEIN.TEST]TEST_REC.;
%COBOL-E-ENDDIAGS, USER1:[KLEIN.TEST]TEST.COB;2 completed with 1 diagnostic

Thanks a lot in advance for any help. Regards,

Ingrid

Script to reproduce the error:

$ create TEST.CDO 
set ver 
delete record/desce test_rec.
define field bigfield_q
    datatype is signed quadword 13 digits scale -2 
    initial_value 1000000000000. 
define record test_rec.
    bigfield_q.
end record.
set nover 
$!
$ DICT OPER @TEST.CDO 
$! 
$ create TEST.COB 
 
*------------------------------------------------------- 
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. 
PROGRAM-ID. TESTPROG INITIAL. 
DATA DIVISION. 
WORKING-STORAGE SECTION. 
 
COPY 'test_rec'     FROM DICTIONARY. 
 
END PROGRAM TESTPROG. 
*------------------------------------------------------- 
$!
$ COBOL/RESERVED=NOXOPEN/LIST/COPY_LIST/NOOBJ TEST.COB 
$exit

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
1081.1		NOVA::SMITHI	Don't understate or underestimate Rdb!	`Wed Apr 16 1997 12:17`	5
	As they upgraded COBOL too, why don't they ask DEC if there is a problem with COBOL. It looks like the value is being converted from binary to text incorrectly. Ian
1081.2	same on Alpha COBOL 2.2-674 and CDD 6.1-03	8292::PJACOB	Patrick [email protected]	`Thu Apr 17 1997 04:57`	13
	Hi Ingrid, for your information, I have a similar symptom on Alpha VMS 6.2 , CDD 6.1-03 and COBOL 2.2-674. 02 BIGFIELD_Q PIC S9(11)V9(2) COMP VALUE IS 91540750244564172.81. ..........................................................^ %COBOL-E-NUMLONG, More than 18 digits in numeric literal at line number 11 in file FRVMSS$DKA200:[USER.PJACOB]TEST_REC.; %COBOL-E-ENDDIAGS, FRVMSS$DKA200:[USER.PJACOB]KLEIN.COB;1 completed with 1 diagnostic Patrick
1081.3	Suggestions from Bill Noyce	ORAREP::PACKED::BRAFFITT		`Thu Apr 17 1997 17:30`	22
	<<< CLT::DISK$CLT_LIBRARY3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COBOL.NOTE;1 >>> -< VAX/DEC COBOL >- ================================================================================ Note 3229.4 NUMLONG error with COBOL/CDD on AXP using huge init. value 4 of 13 WIBBIN::NOYCE "Pulling weeds, pickin' stones" 16 lines 17-APR-1997 09:00 -< User's CDO definition is inconsistent, I think >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > datatype is signed quadword 13 digits scale -2 > initial_value 1000000000000. "13 digits scale -2" is the same as PIC S9(11)V9(2). The initial value you're providing is too large for that field -- it needs at least S9(13)Vwhatever. If you want 13 digits left of the decimal, and 2 to the right, write "signed quadword 15 digits scale -2". If you want 11 digits left of the decimal, and 2 to the right, you need a smaller initial value, perhaps "10000000000". If you want 13 digits left of the decimal, with the two low digits not stored (same as S9(11)P(2), I think), write "11 digits scale +2".
1081.4	doesn't help	5150::KLEIN		`Fri Apr 18 1997 02:36`	6
	Sorry, but this doesn't help I had already tried this. It seems that the initial value is correctly included in COBOL as long as it fits into a longword. Regards, Ingrid
1081.5	Problem shows up with CDD V6.1-03 (not CDD V5.3)	ORAREP::PACKED::BRAFFITT		`Thu May 01 1997 08:23`	17
	RE: .1 >As they upgraded COBOL too, why don't they ask DEC if there is a problem with >COBOL. The problem appears to be unrelated to DEC COBOL version. It seems to show up with CDD V6.1-03 (I don't know about higher versions). We've had no reports of this problem with CDD V5.3 used with any version of DEC COBOL. >Note 1081.0 cobol-e-numlong with large initial value 4 replies >VMS V6.2 AXP >CDD V6.1-03 and V7.0 >COBOL V2.4-863 >Note 1081.2 cobol-e-numlong with large initial value 2 of 4 > CDD 6.1-03 and COBOL 2.2-674.