IBM Compilers (was RE: gnubol: How do we parse this language, anyway?

["William M. Klein" <wmklein@ix.netcom.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnu-cobol@wallace.lusars.net
> [mailto:owner-gnu-cobol@wallace.lusars.net]On Behalf Of Michael McKernan
 <snip>
>
> I find myself in a strange position advocating this extension.  I am,
> by nature, a language conservative and usually pretty chary about
> extensions.  I'm willing to back down if we can determine that IBM
> doesn't support it.  Which of their compilers are in wide enough use
> to pay attention to?
>

Semi-easy (but long) question to answer:

(Mainframe first)

VS COBOL II, Release 3.0 was the first compiler that IBM offered that
supported the '85 Standard (about 1987).  Currently, the only release of VS
COBOL II that is supported is Release 4.0 - and it will go out of support
March 2001 (not 2000).  Although earlier releases of VS COBOL II did support
NOT-conditionals and scope terminators, they (those releases) were not used
enough to worry about.  I think that there are still a "medium-large" number
of programs out there using VS COBOL II to test (and I am POSITIVE) that they
will work (for unterminated conditionals) the same way as the newer
compilers.

The current "strategic" compilers are nick-named (by me - and I think others
have started using this too)
   "IBM COBOL for this-and-that"
The real names are:
    IBM COBOL for MVS & VM
        and
    IBM COBOL for OS/390 & VM
(both of which can be found with or without "MLE" (Millennium Language
Extensions - but this is a non-issue for most of what you are doing now.))
(COBOL/370 came in between VS COBOL II and IBM COBOL for this-and-that - but
it wasn't that commonly used - and is no longer supported). FYI, these
compilers (along with Fujitsu, Siemans, and Micro Focus *all* support OO -
but I assume you aren't getting into that - at least yet.)

If you run your compatibility tests on (either of) these compilers, then I
think you will get "useful" information.

NOTE: These compilers (as well as VS COBOL II) can be run with the CMPR2
compiler option.  I would suggest NOT testing with that (even though some
sites still use it) because this put the compiler in ANS'74 mode - instead of
ANS'85 mode. (This isn't its official definition, but BASICALLY is what it
does.)

  ***

Workstation (OS/2, Windows *and* AIX)

Although the Intel (OS/2 and Windows) compilers have a different name than
the AIX Compilers (VisualAge COBOL - for the former; COBOLSet for the latter)
they use the same "syntax" front-end and MORE IMPORTANTLY they use the same
syntax front-end as the mainframe COBOL for this-and-that compilers.
Therefore, as far as syntax goes, you can use any of these interchangeably.
(Well, actually there are a few "extensions" for the Workstation - such as
LINE SEQUENTIAL files and COMP-5 data types, but these shouldn't be on your
critical path)

  ***

OS/400

I know just enough of this area to get myself in trouble.  The COBOL/400
family of products is a VERY common one (number of sites and machines - but
not necessarily number of end-users) - but is off on a "path by itself".  It
doesn't support the same syntax (extensions) as the others and has some
(MANY) of its own.  COBOL/ILE is the most current compiler, but I don't
really know (well) its "ins and outs".  I know that you have some Wang people
looking at/working with your GNU COBOL.  There TENDS to be (generalization)
more of an overlap in "audience" between the WANG COBOL and COBOL/400
people - so hopefully they can help you here.

  ***

A big note needs to be made here about the *OLD* OS/VS COBOL and DOS/VS COBOL
compilers.  These products are '74 compilers that have been out of service
for a LONG time now.  UNFORTUNATELY, there is still a relatively big code
base out there that still uses them.  Also, unfortunately, these compilers
have an INCREDIBLY large number of "undocumented extensions" (code that
works, that programs rely on, but that IBM doesn't/never did support).  I
can't recommend strongly enough to NOT get into the business of trying to
support these.  The good news (at least for the conditional statement
question) is that they support NONE of the '85 Standard "enhancements".

  ***

Does this help?

Bill Klein
  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com>


--
This message was sent through the gnu-cobol mailing list.  To remove yourself
from this mailing list, send a message to majordomo@lusars.net with the
words "unsubscribe gnu-cobol" in the message body.  For more information on
the GNU COBOL project, send mail to gnu-cobol-owner@lusars.net.