IBM Mainframe Forum Index
 
Log In
 
IBM Mainframe Forum Index Mainframe: Search IBM Mainframe Forum: FAQ Register
 

Unexpected IGYDS1154 warning


IBM Mainframe Forums -> COBOL Programming
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RTE200

New User


Joined: 06 Nov 2024
Posts: 4
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2024 7:35 pm
Reply with quote

Howdy, everyone.

I'm confused by the following REDEFINES triggering "redefines a smaller item" warning.
Code:
*
* 01 level item is not provided here, bc full structure is too big anyway,
*     but there are lots of items before and after the 'problematic' REDEFINES.
*
03  AA16-TIME-PIC9            PIC 9(7)    VALUE ZEROES.         304  310   7    3 
03  AA16-TIME-PIC9-R9     REDEFINES     AA16-TIME-PIC9.         304  322  19PR  <

*ERROR* IGYDS1154-W "AA16-TIME-PIC9-R9" redefined a smaller item. The program was accepted as written.

    05  FILLER                PIC 9.                            304  304   1
    05  AA16-HH               PIC 9(2).                         305  306   2    K
    05  AA16-MM               PIC 9(2).                         307  308   2    K
    05  AA16-SS               PIC 9(2).                         309  310   2    K
* Enterprise IBM COBOL 4.2.0

The difference in size seems to be quite significant according to compiler output.

P.S.

I have found one IBM ticket, where the solution section is saying the following:
Quote:
We intentionally did not diagnose the 01 level redefines. We only issue message 1154 if the redefines is a non 01 level because it changes the length of the 01 group item that contains the redefines item. This is working as designed.

Does it (officially) mean 'redefines' statement applied to non-01-level item is 'messing' with the size of the resulting item ?
icon_confused.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phrzby Phil

Senior Member


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1049
Location: Richmond, Virginia

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:51 pm
Reply with quote

I'd like to see the code following your last shown line:

Code:
* Enterprise IBM COBOL 4.2.0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RTE200

New User


Joined: 06 Nov 2024
Posts: 4
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:30 pm
Reply with quote

Thanks, Phil,

I've already found it, and just like you've said it was matter of the next item.

Next item had misleading formatting, something like this:
Code:
03  AA16-TIME-PIC9            PIC 9(7)    VALUE ZEROES.         304  310   7    3 
03  AA16-TIME-PIC9-R9     REDEFINES     AA16-TIME-PIC9.         304  322  19PR  <
    05  FILLER                PIC 9.                            304  304   1
    05  AA16-HH               PIC 9(2).                         305  306   2    K
    05  AA16-MM               PIC 9(2).                         307  308   2    K
    05  AA16-SS               PIC 9(2).                         309  310   2    K
* Enterprise IBM COBOL 4.2.0
05  NEXT-ITEM                 PIC 9(12).
05       REDEFINES       NEXT-ITEM.
    10  NEXT-DATE             PIC 9(08).
    10  NEXT-NUM              PIC 9(04).
03  THIS-IS-WHERE-THE-SIZE-IS-BACK-TO-NORMAL .

Looks like someone did a bad copy-paste, back in the day, when this routine was written.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phrzby Phil

Senior Member


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1049
Location: Richmond, Virginia

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2024 10:37 pm
Reply with quote

Good catch. Pretty sloppy indentation.

The nice thing about the PL/I Optimizing Compiler was that source lines could be 100 characters long (obviously only useful with online source code). Byte 1 was for a comment "*", so the other 99 for code.

This allowed very deep indenting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RTE200

New User


Joined: 06 Nov 2024
Posts: 4
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 1:06 pm
Reply with quote

Phrzby Phil wrote:
The nice thing about the PL/I Optimizing Compiler was that source lines could be 100 characters long (obviously only useful with online source code). Byte 1 was for a comment "*", so the other 99 for code.

This allowed very deep indenting.

I think there is something similar for COBOL, called "free format", but afaik it's only available for PC compilers, and this format never got popular, bc most of the COBOL codebase is following traditional "A, B areas" format.

P.S.

You made me curious now to find and to look at some COBOL project, which utilizes all the modern standard features, like OOP, bitwise operators, dynamic memory allocation, etc.

P.P.S.

Btw, I have spent about 2-3 intense hours before I figured out the item level issue, more than 20 recompiles, trying all kinds of mini-changes to the "problematic" lines, and then I've just took the whole structure into FILE-AID (option 8) and then I found it right away. FILE-AID forces its own formatting and has none of the compiler meta-data obviously, making it easier to drill the code.
icon_eyes.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
View previous topic :: :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic View Bookmarks
All times are GMT + 6 Hours
Forum Index -> COBOL Programming

 


Similar Topics
Topic Forum Replies
No new posts Issue with CA Copycat-IGD17100I UNEXP... CA Products 5
No new posts Warning in dataset message TSO/ISPF 18
No new posts Unexpected token parsing JSON value u... PL/I & Assembler 3
No new posts Unexpected msg ICE222A DFSORT/ICETOOL 3
No new posts JCL calling REXX - getting IKJ56246I ... JCL & VSAM 2
Search our Forums:

Back to Top