Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
6110 views

Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

Same identical data file shows two different record lengths when accessed in Net Ex 3.1 vs. Visual COBOL.  See attached screen captures.  Have tried cleaning solution/project, reboot etc.  Currently seeing warning messages about Comp-5 redefinition.  I have another project in the solution with Comp-5 redef in the FD and I don't have an issue there.  Any idea why this would occur?

 

Select statement is as follows:

SELECT CASE-DBF ASSIGN TO DYNAMIC LOCCASEDBF

ORGANIZATION IS INDEXED

ACCESS IS DYNAMIC

LOCK MODE IS AUTOMATIC WITH LOCK ON RECORDS

RECORD KEY IS AIRRS-CDB-KEY

FILE STATUS IS FILE-STATUS.

 

Begin Net X Images

Begin Visual COBOL Images

0 Likes
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

If you add the IBMCOMP directive to the additional directives you should see the record size match NX 3.1.

NX 5.1 and Visual COBOL do not have the IBMCOMP directive on by default.

View solution in original post

0 Likes
9 Replies
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

additonal images

Tags (2)
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

Hi, could you attach a file containing the SELECT and FD statements please?

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

Attached casedbf_sl_fd.txt.

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

Further checking, I have at least one other file with the same situation.  The copybooks used in Net Ex included the directive $set DATACOMPRESS"1" and $set NODATACOMPRESS"1" .  Could this be the issue?  I am attaching the original copybooks for the Select and FD as well.

 

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

Original Case FD

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

Original caseque Select.  This file has the same record length issue.

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

original caseque FD

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

If you add the IBMCOMP directive to the additional directives you should see the record size match NX 3.1.

NX 5.1 and Visual COBOL do not have the IBMCOMP directive on by default.

View solution in original post

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

RE: Indexed Data File size difference between Net Ex 3.1 and Visual Cobol, Comp-5 redefinition involved

Jump to solution

This was successful, thank you for the help.

0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.