[Default] On 11 Oct 2017 05:33:46 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Farley, Peter x23353) wrote:
>It depends on the version of COBOL in use. COBOL V4.2 and earlier default to >BLOCK CONTAINS 1 if the phrase is not specified in the FD, which is why most >sensible z/OS shop standards call for always using BLOCK CONTAINS 0. I can't >speak for VM or VSE shop standards, I haven't worked in either of those >environments for quite a long time. > >COBOL V5+ have a new compiler option, BLOCK0, which changes the default to >BLOCK CONTAINS 0, though the option is off by default for compatibility with >earlier releases. If a block count other than zero for a QSAM file is either defaulted to or explicitly stated (BLOCK 10 for example), then COBOL will require that no more than that number of blocks is on the input file and abend if it isn't (I'm not certain how it would handle consecutive short blocks) unless STATUS-CODE is specified for the file. On output the blocksize would be determined by the number of blocks specified if not zero. VSAM files never have had block count specified and have always used the CISIZE defined. Clark Morris > >HTH > >Peter > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Tim Hare >Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:19 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Sort Question > >I know I am late to this, but I see no BLOCK CONTAINS 0 RECORDS in the COBOL. >I'm not totally current on COBOL releases, but >A) is that still required to use block size from the JCL >B) is it even relevant in this instance - COBOL will use the block size value >of the dataset that's input, yes? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
