On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:34:28 -0600, Peter Ten Eyck <[email protected]> wrote:
>At this point I am thinking the coding change is required due a difference in >how the COBOL compilers work. I was attempting to identify what that >difference may be or find something in the migration guide that highlighted >it. ... I think that is essentially correct. The compiler, or the runtime - a more slight chance. You've eliminated "data" as an issue, and, except as an incidental, the Assembler program. If R4 is zero and you review my requests, I think you will be there. I don't think it is documented in a Migration Guide, but there is some "supporting material". Of course, I can be wrong :-) There's not enough information to fully support what I think, but nothing has countered it yet. Other evidence could do so. If R4 is zero, then I'm still 100% (that's rounded), sure it is not DATA(31) being an issue (unless there is weird code in the Assembler program which coincidentally makes R4 zero when whatever circumstances cause this - never say never). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
