🚀 go-pugleaf

Kerry,
Thanks for your detail explanation. But IBM guy told me the issue
applies to COBOL/VSE even through it state in the COBOL manual that it
only applies to DOS/COBOL. Is that true??

PL.
In article <3959284F.3C8D8027@msdw.com>,
  Kerry Ellis <Kerry.Ellis@MSDW.com> wrote:
> OS/VS Cobol was oblivious to the CICS environment.  The Inspect,
> String and Unstring statements invoked routines that issued OS (not
> CICS) Getmains.  Because OS/VS Cobol programs had to be term-
> inated with an EXEC CICS RETURN, the Cobol runtime routines
> were never given a chance to clean up; eventually, the CICS region
> would run out of what used to be called "OSCOR" and incur an OS
> abend such as S80A.  Nowadays, with Cobol II and the "new" LE
> conforming compilers, all run time storage acquisition requests are
> handled by environment specific library routines, so Inspect, String
> and Unstring are given CICS DSA storage that is not different than
> any other piece of transaction storage.  In addition, such programs
> can be ended with a STOP RUN or an EXEC CICS RETURN;
> both will go through normal program/run unit cleanup; however,
> any task duration storage that is missed will be freed by task term-
> ination.  (BTW, the restrictions against String, Unstring and Inspect
> were dropped IIRC with the arrival of the Cobol II compiler which
> was =E6ons ago.)
>
> Kerry
>
> "William M. Klein" wrote:
>
> > I believe that you are correct.  I tried to find this documented in
the=
>  COBOL
> > manuals, but couldn't (easily).  HOWEVER, I can find the list of
what "=
> is"
> > restricted under the current COBOL with CICS - and it doesn't
include t=
> hose
> > verbs.  Check out:
> >
> > http://www.s390.ibm.com/bookmgr-cgi/bookmgr.cmd/BOOKS/IGYPG204/4%
2e10%2=
> e1%2e6
> >
> > --
> > Bill Klein
> >     wmklein <at> ix dot netcom dot com
> > "Clark F. Morris, Jr." <cfmtech@istar.ca> wrote in message
> > news:39587336.17BE2312@istar.ca...
> > > I am forwarding this to comp.lang.cobol to verify my impression
that =
> VS
> > > COBOL II, COBOL for MVS and VM and COBOL for MVS and VM have no
> > > restrictions on the use of STRING, UNSTRING and INSPECT.  All of
thes=
> e
> > > are 31 bit compilers.
> > >
> > > Clark Morris, CFM Technical Programming Services Inc.,
cfmtech@istar.=
> ca
> > >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: STRING, UNstring & INSPECT are not recommended
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:14:00 GMT
> > > From: Patrick Lee <patricklee@whbhk.com>
> > > Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
> > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cics-l
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > > According to IBM APAR II06138, we should not use STRING, UNSTRING,
> > > INSPECT because they will eat up our 24bit Getvis area. Any
> > > recommendation of alternatives for these 3 words????
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Patrick.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.