Re: Fujitsu COBOL and NOTRUNC option

From: William M. Klein (wmklein_at_nospam.netcom.com)
Date: 08/25/04 

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:20:47 GMT

If you want a "portable" and STANDARD solution (from Fujitsu), contact the
vendor and ask them when they plan on providing support for the detection and
appropriate declaratives for handling the

    EC-SIZE-TRUNCATION

exception condition.

See page 400 of the 2002 Standard for when this condition is raised 

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
news:fk7li0l9ihk54655suvmohup8edrdijuqq@4ax.com...
> On 23 Aug 2004 13:41:44 -0700, pottmi@yahoo.com (Michael Potter)
> wrote:
>
> >I would like to gather programmer's experiences using the Fujitsu
> >COBOL compiler's NOTRUNC compile option.  In particular I would like
> >sample code of unexpected behavior.
>
> The only difference I've seen is faster execution .. on the order of
> 2%, more with OPTIMIZE.
>
> The Standard doesn't guarantee portability of BINARY across platforms,
> so you shouldn't be writing them to files. At issue is temporary
> variables in memory. Hypothetically, a different compiler or options
> (TRUNC, OPTIMIZE, MLBOFF) could produce different results. IMO, code
> that depends on compiler truncation to produce correct results is
> poorly written and likely to contain other fuzzy thinking.
>
> It would be nice if there were a compiler option similar to bounds
> checking to diagnose truncation. Unfortunately, there isn't.
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Need help on modifying and assembly of a small program!
    ... care for "international support" at the moment...BUT will you care _LATER_? ... make your keyboard driver use "keymaps" or something (which simply ... that there's a kind of "standard" for typing English with their Cyrillic ... This is the "portability" of the OS source ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: removing a loop cause it to go at half the speed?
    ... The concepts are also useful because they are well defined by the same standard that defined the C language. ... If the standard says it is undefined behaviour then even if your implementation defines it you know that you will have to check whether it is documented for *every* system you want to use it on in the future, and you may well come across a system which leaves it completely undefined and possibly even causes random behaviour. ... or you will have on some other platform. ... Portability is not always easy or possible, but the starting point is knowing what the C standard guarantees and what it doesn't. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: <ctype.h> toLower()
    ... See the C Standard. ... >> tolower() is implemented. ... >> platform, without even having to know which character set is used on that ... is, however, an error in portability for me to *call* that macro. ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)
  • Re: Storgae durations
    ... standard you referred to is no longer current. ... advocating C99 and saying that C90 is obsolete, ... Then you are in no position to make an argument about C99's portability ... there are implementations for C99 that target those platforms. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Multimedia
    ... networkable HA & HT control. ... Jist so others do not misunderstand, the Fujitsu 3400 tablet PC is *not* ... Standard PC's and PC-XT's with standard-issue PC monitors were usable with ... Tablet PC with an electronic pen. ...
    (comp.home.automation)