IBM Mainframe Forum Index
 
Register
 
IBM Mainframe Forum Index Mainframe: Search Log in to check your private messages Log in
 

Altering COBOL Load Module Signature Bytes


 
IBM Mainframe Forums -> COBOL Programming
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bill O'Boyle

CICS Moderator


Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 2504
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:06 pm
Reply with quote

I have a customer, who (up until recently) always compiled their COBOL programs (both Batch and CICS) using the DATA(24) option, because "They always did it this way" icon_sad.gif

Now, they're asking me to alter the load-module signature-byte, which is byte-01, bit-03, to a value of B'1', which represents DATA(31). So basically, this byte would be changed from B'01000000' to B'0110000'.

I have advised them that a zap like this could open a can of worms as well as affect 24-Bit Assembler sub-program addressability (they have several dozen). I've advised them that (as the very least) the Assembler sub-programs need to be relinked as AMODE 31 / RMODE ANY.

Has anyone ever done this load-module alteration before, with success?

I've told them to recompile/link their COBOL programs, specifying the DATA(31) compile option (I believe that's the default) and that will be that.

All feedback is welcome.

Thanks,

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Sample

Global Moderator


Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8568
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:14 pm
Reply with quote

I've never done such a modification and I suspect it won't work anyway -- COBOL does other things during the compile process that can be affected by the DATA option (generation of address fields for calls to internal programs is just the first thing that comes to mind). They need to bite the bullet and recompile using DATA(31) to resolve everything correctly. If not, I'd recommend at least a couple of months of testing to see what shows up before trusting any such code to production.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick scherrer

Moderator Emeritus


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19251
Location: Inside the Matrix

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:17 pm
Reply with quote

As Wednesday Addams said:

"Be afraid. Be very afraid". . .

d
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MBabu

Active User


Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 401
Location: Mumbai

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:14 am
Reply with quote

I think that is a little like expecting to get a fast car by putting a Ferreri bumper sticker on your Yugo. Doesn't make any sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Sample

Global Moderator


Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8568
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:38 am
Reply with quote

But Mbabu, the Michelin high-performance tires give the Yugo such a sporty look! icon_biggrin.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mmwife

Super Moderator


Joined: 30 May 2003
Posts: 1592

PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:09 am
Reply with quote

Hi Bill,

You might want to compile a module w/DATA24 and again w/DATA31, then compare the object code, loads, and/or their NOOFF,LISTs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
View previous topic :: :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic All times are GMT + 6 Hours
Forum Index -> COBOL Programming
Page 1 of 1

 

Search our Forum:

Similar Topics
Topic Forum Replies
No new posts JCL for replacing code in Cobol JCL & VSAM 8
No new posts COBOL VS SORT Utility for file format... COBOL Programming 6
No new posts XML Parsing in COBOL creating "h... COBOL Programming 0
No new posts Calling Rexx program from Cobol CLIST & REXX 12
No new posts Altering output file attributes All Other Mainframe Topics 5

Back to Top