|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
siddhartha biswas
Currently Banned
New User
Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 15
Location: india
|
|
|
|
I need to compare PIC S9(9) COMP variable with PIC 9(9) variable and write in output file if they match.
Is it possible to compare them directly or I need to move PIC S9(9) COMP to a PIC 9(9) variable before the comparison ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Sample
Global Moderator
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8700
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
|
|
|
|
| Why did you not research this in the COBOL manual (link at the top of the page)? If you do the research, you will find that numeric variables can be compared with an IF statement with no problems -- and so can alphanumeric variables. I'll leave it up to you to determine if both of your variables are numeric. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phrzby Phil
Senior Member
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1049
Location: Richmond, Virginia
|
|
|
|
Then there's ... drum roll ...
testing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Sample
Global Moderator
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8700
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
|
|
|
|
| I think "testing" is becoming the four-letter word of IT, even though it can be a lot of fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Testing. . . We don' need no steenkin' testing. . .
If it clean compiles, it is ready for production. . .  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Sample
Global Moderator
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8700
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
|
|
|
|
Dick, you may say this ...
| Quote: |
| If it clean compiles, it is ready for production. |
but when I was in the Old Country (working for a previous employer), one of the programmers there told me a clean compile meant the program was tested. Sadly enough, the quality of the code reflected this attitude pretty much throughout. I had to tell the U.S. programmers that they were not allowed to ask "Why?" when working on the source for that system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hi Robert,
| Quote: |
| but when I was in the Old Country (working for a previous employer), one of the programmers there told me a clean compile meant the program was tested. |
A couple of places i supported (ya get to see a bunch of strange things in 3 decades of being a migrant data worker) had it as policy that when the programmer got a clean compile, the programmer was done.
Fortunately, the next step was the "formal unit testing" with an analyst/programmer. Unfortunately, they wasted so much time that nothing moved forward - which was how i was invited to participate. Told them that immediately, the programmer would at least make sure that screens were displayed properly and reports had basically correct content. This alone saved more than 80% of the trips back for re-work. Testing stopped at the first error and continued when that particular error had been "fixed". Mercy. . .
One of the nicest "perks" about being the new crisis intervention guru is that when you provide direction, you tend to get your way  The newcomer can get "things" implemented about which people already on staff are told no.
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill O'Boyle
CICS Moderator
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 2501
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking out loud here and was pondering the fact that a false positive could be raised in the program which has the PIC 9(09) COMP field and the value exceeds the Picture Clause size of 999999999, due to the use of the TRUNC(BIN) compiler option?
It really depends on how the compiler builds both fields for comparison?
Does it convert them both to packed-dblwords or converts only the display-numeric field to a fullword?
But then again, maybe I'm completely off on a tanget and there's nothing to worry about? 
Just thought I'd raised this as a potential pitfall....
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Sample
Global Moderator
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8700
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
|
|
|
|
Bill: this code
| Code: |
01 WS-COMP-VAR PIC S9(09) COMP VALUE 123456789.
01 WS-DISP-VAR PIC S9(09) VALUE 234567890.
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
MAIN-PARA.
COMPUTE WS-COMP-VAR = WS-COMP-VAR * 10 .
DISPLAY 'COMP ' WS-COMP-VAR.
DISPLAY 'DISPLAY ' WS-DISP-VAR.
IF WS-COMP-VAR = WS-DISP-VAR
DISPLAY 'MATCHED'
ELSE
DISPLAY 'UNMATCHED'
END-IF. |
translates the IF to
| Code: |
000021 IF
000408 5840 8000 L 4,0(0,8) WS-COMP-VAR
00040C 8E40 0020 SRDA 4,32(0)
000410 5D40 C000 D 4,0(0,12) SYSLIT AT +0
000414 4E50 D118 CVD 5,280(0,13) TS2=24
000418 F154 D100 D11B MVO 256(6,13),283(5,13) TS2=0
00041E 4E40 D118 CVD 4,280(0,13) TS2=24
000422 9110 D105 TM 261(13),X'10' TS2=5
000426 D204 D105 D11B MVC 261(5,13),283(13) TS2=5
00042C 4780 B1E4 BC 8,484(0,11) GN=20(000434)
000430 9601 D109 OI 265(13),X'01' TS2=9
000434 GN=20 EQU *
000434 F258 D110 8008 PACK 272(6,13),8(9,8) TS2=16
00043A F844 D111 D111 ZAP 273(5,13),273(5,13) TS2=17
000440 D505 D104 D110 CLC 260(6,13),272(13) TS2=4
000446 4770 B208 BC 7,520(0,11) GN=5(000458)
000022 DISPLAY |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill O'Boyle
CICS Moderator
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 2501
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
|
|
|
|
Robert,
Had to take a mind break about this, but now I know what I was trying to say.
Let's say program "A" created the binary-fullword (non COMP-5) and it was compiled with TRUNC(BIN) and the value was F'1987675321', a perfectly legitimate value for a fullword. Now, this fullword is passed to program "B", but this program was compiled with TRUNC(OPT) and the fullword is defined as non COMP-5 as well. So, because of TRUNC(OPT), only F'987654321' is addressable and the high-order digit is truncated, due to the picture clause number of digits. Plus, the 9-byte display-numeric field in program "B" just so happens to equal C'987654321'. When both of these fields are converted to a "like" format by the compiler for comparison, they will be equal, raising the false positive.
Although the likelihood of this false positive occurring is remote, it can't be ruled out.
Such are the dangers of having programs, which are compiled using different TRUNC options and they deal with non COMP-5 binary-data.
COMP-5 (as you know) treats binary-fields as if the program had been compiled using TRUNC(BIN) and COMP-5 overrides all TRUNC options, regardless.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phrzby Phil
Senior Member
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1049
Location: Richmond, Virginia
|
|
|
|
As Artie Johnson once said:
In America, children should be seen but not heard.
In the Old Country, if you were heard, then you were never seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phrzby Phil
Senior Member
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1049
Location: Richmond, Virginia
|
|
|
|
On a More Serious Note
For any Newbies still watching
The only way to really learn any of this stuff is to run your own tests - good data and bad - normal and screwy parms - trying different values just for the hell of it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| . . . run your own tests - good data and bad - normal and screwy parms - trying different values . . . |
And save these test processes. They will be most handy when verifying that some upgrade has not changed the way they work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmwife
Super Moderator
Joined: 30 May 2003
Posts: 1592
|
|
|
|
Hi Sid,
My concern about your problem is that one field is signed and the other isn't. Is the intent to only accept positive number matches, or is PIC 9(9) a typo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
