Re: [open-cobol-list] OpenCOBOL release 1.0

[Alain]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:42:10 +1100
Tim Josling <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 11:27 +0100, Alain wrote:

> 
> -2 147 483 648  and +2 147 483 647 are not the largest possible
> magnitide 10-digit numbers.
> 
> 9,999,999,999 and -9,999,999,999 are 10 digit numbers which fit in pic
> s9(10) but not in a 32-bit int.
> 
> So s9(10) comp *is* too big for int32. Though not all values you might
> put there are necessarily too big.
> 
> Tim Josling
> 
Hello Tim,

Happy to have news from you.

I well know what you write but seem to me that PIC S9(9) COMP is not enough
large for RECEIVE the "int" SEND by libpq : PGconn, PQntuple, and so on ...
This worked well with O-C-0.23.19 and Postgres-7.x with fields defined as
PIC S9(8) COMP but don't work with O-C-1.0 (old) and Postgres-8.x.
I have write about to Rildo Pragana, but he answer that all interfaces don't
work again with PG-8.x and must be rewrited ...
In fact, this works for some fields and not for other.
As I have read in cobol specifications (from ANSI ?) that you know better
than me and I cannot retrieve from internet, that a cobol PIC s9(9) cannot
have a value more than 999,999,999 not enough for 2,147,483,647 I have tried
with S9(10) COMP and, now, I am trying with PIC S9(9) COMP-5, but not with 
too much hope that can work well ... 
After I was trying on an old version of Linux with O-C-0.23.19 + Postgres-7.4, 
and after O-C-1.0 (new) and if this works, on a new version of Linux with
O-C-1.0 and Postgres-8.2 ... with the time perhaps I understand what is not
working. Unfortunally I'm not good enough in C for rewrite the interface for
cobol to postgres.

Well, what is the state of Cobol for GCC ?

Best regards,   
-- 
Alain <address@hidden>