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

[Alain]

Hi Sergey,

I don't understand for what (with "binary-byteorder: native" in
/usr/local/share/open-cobol/config/default-conf) but you are RIGHT
seem that this work with "PIC S9(9) COMP-5", so
- Thank you for the lesson,
- if I may, I send you a pizza from Marseille : "the better pizzas in the 
world" ! 

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:41:44 -0500
"Sergey Kashyrin" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Than I recommend to look at Cobol manuals.
what manuals ?
I have an old for MF, but not seen more.
In fact, this was working with O-C-0.23.19 and Postgres-7.4 with s9(8) comp
or s9(12) comp and now seem working with old O-C-1.0 (0.33 modified) and 
Postgres-8.2.3.

> for little-endian "s9(7) comp-5" will be your 4-byte native "int" (and it's 
> not limited to 7 digits).
> "comp" is defined as big-endian so on x86 it's not compatible with "int".
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Alain" <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] OpenCOBOL release 1.0
> 
> 
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:13:17 -0500
> > "Ron Norman" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> A PIC S9(10) COMP is TOO BIG for a 32-bit integer.
> >> The maximum you can use and still have it fit is PIC S9(9) COMP.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Ron and Serguey,
> > Thanks for your answer, but the documentation of C and postgres said that 
> > an int may have the values from -2 147 483 648 to +2 147 
> > 483 647 ie 10 digits.
> > In my remember, a cobol documentation said that the maximum value for PIC 
> > S9(9), eventually COMP, is 999 999 999 so, if you are 
> > right, it is impossible to have the value of an int.
> > In fact, when the problem appears I have the fields defined as pic s9(8) 
> > comp, so ???
> >

Thank you again and regards
-- 
Alain <address@hidden>