Need to compare COMP and CHAR variables

deepaannjohn · New User Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 19 Location: Bangalore

Hi,

05 c-id1 pic x(10)
05 c-id2 pic s9(9) comp

05 c-id-temp1 pic 9(10)
05 c-id-temp2 pic s9(9) comp

Need to do compare c-id1 with cid-2.
so the following was done.

Move c-id1 to c-id-temp1
Move c-id-temp1 to c-id-temp2

PERFORM UNTIL c-id-temp2 > c-id2

IF (c-id-temp2 = c-id2)
.....
end-if

end-perform

But, when this is run using Xpeditor, it shows that '1111111111' when moved from c-id1 to c-id-temp2, truncates the last byte.

Please advice how i can handle this.

Also, I tried moving c-id2 directly to s 9(10) comp. But then it does not pass PERFORM UNTIL c-id-temp2 > c-id2 .

Regards,
Deepa

deepaannjohn · New User Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 19 Location: Bangalore

Sorry..the heading is incorrect..It shud be 'need to compare comp and char'

dick scherrer · Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:58 pm

Hello,

You cannot move 10 digits into a 9-digit receiving field and not expect truncation.

You don't want to compare 10 filled digits to 9 as that will not yeld the results you want.

What code is going to increment/decrement one of the fields so that the UNTIL becomes true?

It looks like you have only posted a bit of the code and not necessarily all that is needed to move forward.

TG Murphy · Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:26 pm

Not exactly sure about what you need but how about this:

05 c-id1 pic x(10)
05 c-id1-N redefines c-id1 pic 9(10).
05 c-id2 pic s9(9) comp

IF c-id1-N is numeric
IF c-id1-N = c-id2
SET WS-THE-SAME TO TRUE
ELSE
SET WS-NOT-THE-SAME TO TRUE
END-IF
ELSE
SET WS-NOT-THE-SAME TO TRUE
END-IF

dick scherrer · Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:57 pm

Hello TG,

I'm not sure that will get it. . .

The original post shows 10 meaningful digits and as long as there is an atempt to work with fields defined as 9 is made, i expect there will be problems due to a field with 10 digits will just not work with another field defined as 9.

Also, i read it as when a value went greater as opposed to not equal.

deepaannjohn · New User Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 19 Location: Bangalore

Hi,

My requirement is to compare an x(10) variable against an s9(9) comp variable.

Currently, I am moving x(10) to s9(10) and then s9(10) to s9(9) comp. But one byte get truncated when i move to s9(9) comp.
The value I am using is 1111111111. Since, s9(9) comp should be able to handle the range 2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647, I am wonderign , why thr truncation is happening?

Please let me know teh ideal way to handle this.

Thanks,
Deepa

dick scherrer · Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:42 pm

Hello,

Why do you think that

nagasri83 · New User Joined: 20 May 2005 Posts: 15 Location: chennai

I agree with Dick. We cannot expect the result without truncation when there is mismatch in from and to fields.

We can compare only 9 characters according to the code given.

stodolas · Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:44 am

Why not move c-id2 to an X(10) field as follows

nagasri83 · New User Joined: 20 May 2005 Posts: 15 Location: chennai

Hi Stodolas,

If we do as you said, it mean we are decided to have '-' in the first character. But it can be any character in the c-id1. By doing this way, you will not arrive at expected result.

Craq Giegerich · Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:01 am

mmwife · Super Moderator Joined: 30 May 2003 Posts: 1592

I'd just like to be sure that I understand. Deepa (or anybody), if the 2 fields are equal what would those fields look like in memory?

Or to put it another way, what numeric data type does the PIC X field represent?

stodolas · Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:12 pm

nagasri83,

I am making no assumptions about the c-id1 field. What I am showing is that we need to put a - in front of a negative number in order to be able to compare. The value of c-id2 is signed numeric, therefore the first postion in an X(10) field would be the sign for that value. Therefore it would fail in the first example below and succeed in the second and third.