PLI Compilation Error

CICS fan · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:38 am

Hello All,

I am getting the following compilation error while compiling a PLI code

IBM2402I Evariable name 1 declared as BASED on the ADDR of variable name 2, but variable name 1 requires more storage than variable name 2.

Is there any compiler option available to workaround this beacuse this is an existing code.

Thanks in advance.

Garry Carroll · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:06 pm

This is an informatory message which "shouldn't" affect execution. The compiler's just warning you of a potential for storage violation. Older compilers didn't detect this potential cause of runtime error.

If you assign something into Variable-1 at a point beyond the end of Variable-2 you are effectively in uncharted waters. If something else is validly occupying that memory location, you run the risk of overwriting it.

The proper approach is the change the declarations such that Variable-2 is BASED on the ADDR of Variable-1.

Garry.

CICS fan · Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:08 am

Thank you Garry, but the compiler is issuing an error wth return code 12. It is not a warning!

dick scherrer · Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:23 am

Hello,

It may help if you post the variables and the code that references the variables along with the diagnostic messsages from the compiler.

CICS fan · Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:52 am

we are facing the following error:

MIR_REC_OVERLAY is declared as BASED on the ADDR of
IN_MIR, but MIR_REC_OVERLAY requires more storage than
IN_MIR.

This is an existing code. The error message gets eliminated if we declare Y after X, then
Y declared as BASED(ADDR(X)).

For example,

Current code:

0DCL 1 IN_MIR STATIC UNALIGNED,

%INCLUDE HANIMAN;
%INCLUDE HANIEXT;
%INCLUDE HANIMIR;
3 DUMMY CHAR(0);

0DCL MIR_REC_OVERLAY CHAR(70) BASED(ADDR(IN_MIR));

Changed code:

0DCL MIR_REC_OVERLAY CHAR(70) STATIC UNALIGNED;
0DCL 1 IN_MIR BASED(ADDR(MIR_REC_OVERLAY)), /* INPUT FILE ISBIMIR */
%INCLUDE HANIMAN;
%INCLUDE HANIEXT;
%INCLUDE HANIMIR;
3 DUMMY CHAR(0); /* END OF INPUT */

Is there a work around this problem, like compiler options etc or modifying processor group definations? Please advise.

Srihari Gonugunta · Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:08 pm

This message alerts you to a potentially important coding error: IBM2402I E <variable x> is declared as BASED on the ADDR of <variable y>, but <variable x> requires more storage tha <variable y>.

The importance of this message depends on how the variables are used in your program. For instance, if X is a 100-byte structure and Y is declared as CHAR(200) BASED(ADDR(X)), then the compiler will issue this message. If your program also contains the statement Y = ’’, then you have a severe problem (because that assignment will wipe out 100 bytes of storage that the compiler is likely to be using for other purposes). You must correct this kind of problem.

However, your program might use Y only in the statements such as: SUBSTR(Y,1,STG(X)) = ’’;
SUBSTR(Y,1,STG(X)) = LOW(STG(X));
In this case, your code does not need to be changed.

However, in this case, you could change the declare of Y to eliminate these messages: if you declare Y after X, you could then declare Y as CHAR(STG(X)) BASED(ADDR(X)). This would eliminate this occurrence of the message without your having to make any changes to your code. But, if you wanted, you could also then simplify the above assignment statements to:
Y = ’’;
Y = LOW(STG(X));

Garry Carroll · Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:34 pm

In any case, as I said:
The proper approach is the change the declarations such that Variable-2 is BASED on the ADDR of Variable-1.

fahir83 · New User Joined: 27 Jan 2006 Posts: 22

I got the same error while upgradring to Enterprise PL/1:

Following is the error:

IBM2402I E O_RPT is declared as BASED on the ADDR of O_RPT_OVLY, but O_RPT requires more storage than O_RPT_OVLY

and here is the declaration.

DCL O_RPT_OVLY CHAR(128) INIT(' ');
DCL 01 O_RPT BASED(ADDR(O_RPT_OVLY)),
++INCLUDE SGHASCAC

SGHASCAC:

05 BRANCH CHAR(03),
05 PDN CHAR(05),
05 ACT_NBR CHAR(03),
05 NAME CHAR(30),
05 TXN_NBR CHAR(15),
05 TXN_TYP CHAR(10),
05 ACH_TXN_NBR PIC '(15)9',
05 TRACE_NBR CHAR (30),
05 DB_CR_IND CHAR(02),
05 AMT PIC '(13)9V.99';

I have just changed the O_RPT_OVLY declaration to CHAR(129). It compiled without any issues. But the question is how it compiled succesfully in old compiler (pl/1 for mvs) ?i didnt even get the warning message.
and anyone let me know whether changing the size is the best option or whether i need to do something else?

Garry Carroll · Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:25 pm

laurie pach · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:56 pm

I just want you all to know I applied your 2 solutions and I'm home free!! To summarize:
1. Yes, Gurgaon, make sure that the 'BASED on ADDR' declaration comes first.
2. Yes, Gary, make sure the sizes of both declarations are the SAME!!

And yes, I know you were all throwing this issue around over a year and a half ago, but I want you to know you have all been a tremendous help to me. THANK YOU SO MUCH!! Laurie

prino · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:23 pm