Tom, Why convert to PDSE? I am curious? A stated IBM direction?
Scott ford www.identityforge.com from my IPAD 'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' On Sep 9, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Tom Ross <tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> In <vnetibm.20130907162208.9...@bldgate.vnet.ibm.com>, on 09/07/2013 >> at 09:22 AM, Tom Ross <tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com> said: >> >>> No, the COBOL Migration Guide is correct, all COBOL programs=20 >>> produce GOFF output with COBOL V5, so after Binding you will have=20 >>> a program object and it must reside in a PDSE. >> >> It's not the use of GOFF per se that requires program objects, it's >> the use of GOFF features that aren't supported in load modules. > > Sorry about that, you are correct. Though GOFF is new for COBOL V5.1, > it is not the reason why the executables must be program objects and > must be in PDSEs. I must admit I was more focused on getting people > ready for COBOL V5.1, and there are really 2 things that shops can > do to prepare for COBOL V5.1 without getting the product, and I have > been SHAREing this information for years now: > > 1) Convert load libraries to PDSE if not already there > > 2) Expand the max region size for users who will be doing compiles > with COBOL V5.1 (they will need 200M). Shops with PL/I or > Fault Analyzer may have done this already, but other shops may > not allow enough region size to do compiles with COBOL V5.1 > > Cheers, > TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
