|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
prashant_mq
New User
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 24
|
|
|
|
| prashant_mq wrote: |
| Hi Craq, I'm getting the AR(E) on the listing, could it be the option cannot be overridable? |
Sorry I mean I'm NOT getting the AR(E) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stodolas
Active Member
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 632
Location: Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
| Odd that it shows that the ARITH(EXTEND) option is in effect already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10873
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
just a hint... long binary up to pic s9(18) are stored as dublewords ( 8 bytes )
I could not find anything on binry with more than 18 digits
number theory
a pic s9(19) will allow a number like 9.999.999.999.999.999.999
and it will definitely not fit in 8 bytes signed
here is a table of 2 powers
| Code: |
/09876543210987654321
1/ 2
2/ 4
3/ 8
4/ 16
5/ 32
6/ 64
7/ 128
8/ 256
9/ 512
10/ 1024
11/ 2048
12/ 4096
13/ 8192
14/ 16384
15/ 32768
16/ 65536
17/ 131072
18/ 262144
19/ 524288
20/ 1048576
21/ 2097152
22/ 4194304
23/ 8388608
24/ 16777216
25/ 33554432
26/ 67108864
27/ 134217728
28/ 268435456
29/ 536870912
30/ 1073741824
31/ 2147483648
32/ 4294967296
33/ 8589934592
34/ 17179869184
35/ 34359738368
36/ 68719476736
37/ 137438953472
38/ 274877906944
39/ 549755813888
40/ 1099511627776
41/ 2199023255552
42/ 4398046511104
43/ 8796093022208
44/ 17592186044416
45/ 35184372088832
46/ 70368744177664
47/ 140737488355328
48/ 281474976710656
49/ 562949953421312
50/ 1125899906842624
51/ 2251799813685248
52/ 4503599627370496
53/ 9007199254740992
54/ 18014398509481984
55/ 36028797018963968
56/ 72057594037927936
57/ 144115188075855872
58/ 288230376151711744
59/ 576460752303423488
60/ 1152921504606846976
61/ 2305843009213693952
62/ 4611686018427387904
63/ 9223372036854775808
64/18446744073709551616
|
also by looking a bit around seems like pic s9(xx) with xx greater than 18
might work only for not binary
it would be worth trying with an usigned representation
pic 9(19) binary, since in this case it is a binary handle the sign would be irrelevant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10873
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
just to sum up things, the answer to the O/P ( original post) seems to be,
YES, but not for BINARY
as I said before since the sign is irrelevant I would try with "PIC 9(19)"
but, it would have been nicer on Your side to say from the beginning that
You were also specifying BINARY without us having to click around  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craq Giegerich
Senior Member
Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 1512
Location: Virginia, USA
|
|
|
|
| enrico-sorichetti wrote: |
just to sum up things, the answer to the O/P ( original post) seems to be,
YES, but not for BINARY
as I said before since the sign is irrelevant I would try with "PIC 9(19)"
but, it would have been nicer on Your side to say from the beginning that
You were also specifying BINARY without us having to click around |
I told him that earlier
| Quote: |
For Enterprise COBOL
For binary items, the number of digit positions must range from 1 through 18 inclusive. For packed decimal and zoned decimal items the number of digit positions must range from 1 through 18, inclusive, when the ARITH(COMPAT) compiler option is in effect, or from 1 through 31, inclusive, when the ARITH(EXTEND) compiler option is in effect.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10873
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
Hi Craq
I had missed Your quote from the manual ,
repeat things does not hurt anyway
and at the time of Your post the TS had not posted the link to the declaration |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
