🚀 go-pugleaf

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 those
verbs.  Check out:


http://www.s390.ibm.com/bookmgr-cgi/bookmgr.cmd/BOOKS/IGYPG204/4%2e10%2e1%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 these
> 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.

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 æons 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 those
> verbs.  Check out:
>
> http://www.s390.ibm.com/bookmgr-cgi/bookmgr.cmd/BOOKS/IGYPG204/4%2e10%2e1%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 these
> > 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.

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.

--------------72A782B134CB0BD7E7AF84A7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sorry, I wouldn't have the foggiest idea.  I think that the
last time I worked on an IBM DOS system was in 1971.
Anyway, I doubt that the "IBM Guy" is anywhere near
being correct.  See:

 4.8.1.6 "COBOL/VSE Programming Guide" via IBM BookManager BookServer

which appears to have become applicable as long ago
as 1983.  Even DOS/VSE has emerged into the 20th
century (even if everybody else is in the 21st).

Kerry

Patrick Lee wrote:

> 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.

--------------72A782B134CB0BD7E7AF84A7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Sorry, I wouldn't have the foggiest idea.&nbsp; I think that the
<br>last time I worked on an IBM DOS system was in 1971.
<br>Anyway, I doubt that the "IBM Guy" is anywhere near
<br>being correct.&nbsp; See:
<p>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.s390.ibm.com:80/bookmgr-cgi/bookmgr.cmd/BOOKS/IGYVA001/4%2e8%2e1%2e6?ACTION=MATCHES&REQUEST=cics&TYPE=FUZZY&SHELF=IGYVS001&searchTopic=TOPIC&searchText=TEXT&searchIndex=INDEX&rank=RANK&ScrollTOP=FIRSTHIT#FIRSTHIT">4.8.1.6
"COBOL/VSE Programming Guide" via IBM BookManager BookServer</a>
<p>which appears to have become applicable as long ago
<br>as 1983.&nbsp; Even DOS/VSE has emerged into the 20th
<br>century (even if everybody else is in the 21st).
<p>Kerry
<p>Patrick Lee wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Kerry,
<br>Thanks for your detail explanation. But IBM guy told me the issue
<br>applies to COBOL/VSE even through it state in the COBOL manual that
it
<br>only applies to DOS/COBOL. Is that true??
<p>PL.
<br>In article &lt;3959284F.3C8D8027@msdw.com>,
<br>&nbsp; Kerry Ellis &lt;Kerry.Ellis@MSDW.com> wrote:
<br>> OS/VS Cobol was oblivious to the CICS environment.&nbsp; The Inspect,
<br>> String and Unstring statements invoked routines that issued OS (not
<br>> CICS) Getmains.&nbsp; Because OS/VS Cobol programs had to be term-
<br>> inated with an EXEC CICS RETURN, the Cobol runtime routines
<br>> were never given a chance to clean up; eventually, the CICS region
<br>> would run out of what used to be called "OSCOR" and incur an OS
<br>> abend such as S80A.&nbsp; Nowadays, with Cobol II and the "new" LE
<br>> conforming compilers, all run time storage acquisition requests are
<br>> handled by environment specific library routines, so Inspect, String
<br>> and Unstring are given CICS DSA storage that is not different than
<br>> any other piece of transaction storage.&nbsp; In addition, such programs
<br>> can be ended with a STOP RUN or an EXEC CICS RETURN;
<br>> both will go through normal program/run unit cleanup; however,
<br>> any task duration storage that is missed will be freed by task term-
<br>> ination.&nbsp; (BTW, the restrictions against String, Unstring and
Inspect
<br>> were dropped IIRC with the arrival of the Cobol II compiler which
<br>> was =E6ons ago.)
<br>>
<br>> Kerry
<br>>
<br>> "William M. Klein" wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > I believe that you are correct.&nbsp; I tried to find this documented
in
<br>the=
<br>>&nbsp; COBOL
<br>> > manuals, but couldn't (easily).&nbsp; HOWEVER, I can find the list
of
<br>what "=
<br>> is"
<br>> > restricted under the current COBOL with CICS - and it doesn't
<br>include t=
<br>> hose
<br>> > verbs.&nbsp; Check out:
<br>> >
<br>> > <a href="http://www.s390.ibm.com/bookmgr-cgi/bookmgr.cmd/BOOKS/IGYPG204/4%">http://www.s390.ibm.com/bookmgr-cgi/bookmgr.cmd/BOOKS/IGYPG204/4%</a>
<br>2e10%2=
<br>> e1%2e6
<br>> >
<br>> > --
<br>> > Bill Klein
<br>> >&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; wmklein &lt;at> ix dot netcom dot com
<br>> > "Clark F. Morris, Jr." &lt;cfmtech@istar.ca> wrote in message
<br>> > <a href="news:39587336.17BE2312@istar.ca">news:39587336.17BE2312@istar.ca</a>...
<br>> > > I am forwarding this to comp.lang.cobol to verify my impression
<br>that =
<br>> VS
<br>> > > COBOL II, COBOL for MVS and VM and COBOL for MVS and VM have
no
<br>> > > restrictions on the use of STRING, UNSTRING and INSPECT.&nbsp;
All of
<br>thes=
<br>> e
<br>> > > are 31 bit compilers.
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Clark Morris, CFM Technical Programming Services Inc.,
<br>cfmtech@istar.=
<br>> ca
<br>> > >
<br>> > > -------- Original Message --------
<br>> > > Subject: STRING, UNstring &amp; INSPECT are not recommended
<br>> > > Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:14:00 GMT
<br>> > > From: Patrick Lee &lt;patricklee@whbhk.com>
<br>> > > Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
<br>> > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cics-l
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Dear all,
<br>> > > According to IBM APAR II06138, we should not use STRING, UNSTRING,
<br>> > > INSPECT because they will eat up our 24bit Getvis area. Any
<br>> > > recommendation of alternatives for these 3 words????
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Thanks.
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Patrick.
<br>> > >
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Sent via Deja.com <a href="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</a>
<br>> > > Before you buy.
<br>>
<br>>
<p>Sent via Deja.com <a href="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</a>
<br>Before you buy.</blockquote>
</html>

--------------72A782B134CB0BD7E7AF84A7--