Re: [Bug-GnuCOBOL] Incorrect parsing of numeric-edited values

[Michael D. Setzer II]

On an AS/400 it runs, but I had to comment out two lines, and here are the 
errors (warnings it showed).

  STMT                                                                   
*    2  MSGID: LBL0047  SEVERITY: 20  SEQNBR:  000200                    
        Message . . . . :   Invalid program-name 'TEST-PIC'. Accepted as 
          'TEST0PIC  '.                                                  
*    5  MSGID: LBL0240  SEVERITY: 20  SEQNBR:  000600                    
        Message . . . . :   Nonnumeric literal expected; numeric literal 
          '0' found. Literal assumed in quotes.                          
*    7  MSGID: LBL0014  SEVERITY: 10  SEQNBR:  001100                    
        Message . . . . :   Delimiter for literal is not correct.        
          Literal accepted.                                              


On 13 May 2017 at 7:56, Sergey Kashyrin wrote:

To:     Ron Norman <address@hidden>
From:   Sergey Kashyrin <address@hidden>
Date sent:      Sat, 13 May 2017 07:56:52 -0400
Subject:        Re: [Bug-GnuCOBOL] Incorrect parsing of numeric-edited values
Copies to:      address@hidden

> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> But it is "severe" error on Mainframe :-(
> 
> 
> On 5/13/17 7:54 AM, Ron Norman wrote:
>     I think that test case is perfectly correct and no warning is needed. 
>     I would expect that ZERO ZEROES ZEROS ZEROE 0 0.000 are all 
>     meaning a value of 'zero' so
>     shouldn't the following all be accepted and mean that the initial value 
> of the 
>     field is zero.
> 
>     01 N PIC .999 VALUE 0.
>     01 N PIC .999 VALUE ZERO.
> 
>     FYI. Micro Focus does not give any warning with this.
>     And if it is VALUE ZERO then GnuCOBOL also gives no warning.
> 
>     I think 0 is the exact same as ZERO.
> 
>     On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Sergey Kashyrin <address@hidden> wrote:
>     Hi Edward,
>     
>     I see GC is accepting the value. Just giving a warning which is 
>     reasonable.
>     Don't think we need to eliminate the warning, which will happen with 
>     this patch.
>     Maybe we need to proceed as with numeric, but to give a warning, at 
>     least with std=ibm or osvs
>     
>     SK
>     
> 
>     On 5/13/17 6:55 AM, Edward Hart wrote:
>     Hi David, 
> 
>     Thanks for the bug report and patch. This is technically extension, 
>     but it's a very innocuous one and it's supported by Micro Focus 
>     (see VALUE Clause, General Rule 1.b). I'll commit this 
>     immediately.
> 
>     Edward
> 
>     On 13 May 2017 at 10:56, David Newall 
>     <address@hidden> wrote:
>     Hi all,
>     
>     I believe it's bug:
> 
>     address@hidden cat test-pic.cbl
>         IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
>         PROGRAM-ID. TEST-PIC.
>     
>         DATA DIVISION.
>         WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
>         01 N  PIC .999 VALUE 0.
>     
>         PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>            START-PROCEDURE SECTION.
>         000-TOP.
>           DISPLAY 'N:', N.
>     
>         END PROGRAM TEST-PIC.
>     
>     address@hidden cobc -x test-pic.cbl
>     test-pic.cbl: 6: warning: alphanumeric value is expected
>     
>     If I'm right (about it being a bug), the problem is in typck.c; 
>     and because of the "TODO" comment, I think it's something 
>     that slipped through the cracks. I think NUMERIC-EDITED 
>     could be parsed the same as NUMERIC is.
>     
>     I'm using r1560. I've attached my suggested patch.
>     
>     Cheers,
>     
>     David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Cheers 
>     Ron Norman
> 
> 


+----------------------------------------------------------+
  Michael D. Setzer II -  Computer Science Instructor      
  Guam Community College  Computer Center                  
  mailto:address@hidden                            
  mailto:address@hidden
  Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
  G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+----------------------------------------------------------+

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
Number of Seti Units Returned:  19,471
Processing time:  32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes
(Total Hours: 287,489)

address@hidden CREDITS
ABC         16611686.340441 | EINSTEIN   135271960.288695
ROSETTA     61251302.766601 | SETI       105677196.318525