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

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

> -----Original Message-----
 <much snippage>
>
> But one small point that may help clarify this, and I ask for
> broad comment
> if there are those who see it clearly in their documentation.  I
> am not sure
> that all the COBOL for this-and-that
> products allow the regress parm (COMPR2/NOCMPR2). There may be a clear end
> date for support of the set of products that can regress (if the regress
> feature is not in all of the really current compilers).
>
> Bob Rayhawk
>

The CMPR2/NOCMPR2 compiler options is supported on all *MAINFRAME* versions
of IBM's newer compilers.  Furthermore, they have explicitly rejected all
attempts to solicit a "drop date" for it.  (Although they do document it as a
migration tool - not a "permanent" solution.)

ON THE OTHER HAND,
  all WORKSTATION (OS/2, Windows, AIX) compilers *only* support NOCMPR2 ('85
Standard) and will reject attempts at compiling with CMPR2 ('74 Standard).
IBM *does* offer (as a part of their "professional" COBOL Intel product) a
conversion aid that automatically converts 95% (plus) of the '74/'85
differences.

Note2: If anyone wants me to provide detailed examples of the NOT with
combined abbreviated conditional differences - which was actually a
difference between the '68 and '74 ANSI Standards - and which is controlled
by the explicit LANGLVL compiler option of OS/VS COBOL and DOS/VS COBOL,
please let me know.  This *is* a non-issue for all compilers distributed by
IBM since 1984 (i.e. ALL releases of VS COBOL II - and later). The '74 and
'85 Standard work identically for this.


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.