[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [open-cobol-list] CVS updated (3)

From: Roger While
Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] CVS updated (3)
Date: Mon Nov 1 06:44:07 2004

Yes, a good idea.
Actually, my fault that I did not state that the necessity for
I would make it a global integer that each developer
would increment if recompilation/link is necessary.
It's not only structure changes; for instance I have in test
some optimization changes that move stuff out of libcob into
the generated cobol code.
The drawbacks are not overwhelming.
(1) is acceptable.
(2) is not a problem as we do it in the program initialization
      ("if !initialized" in the generated C code)

Let me think about it.
With some of the things that I envisage implementing,
it will become a common occurrence to have to recompile/link
after a CVS pull.


At 14:57 01.11.2004 +0100, you wrote:
That seems fine, except maybe one point: the reordering of fields
in the cob_file struct in fileio.h.

It means that ALL programs MUST be recompiled and (relinked
if static) against the newer libcob.

I wonder if we could not add a version identification in such
structures and let the runtime check the availability of new
features before using them.

1) Incompatible the first time
2) More time spent at execution.

Or at least keep a note for the next release pointing to that
incompatible change.

Your opinion ?

Bernard Giroud
Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) SA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger While" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 12:29 PM
Subject: [open-cobol-list] CVS updated (3)

> CVS updated.
> Always activate I/O exceptions.
> Case 1 : FILE STATUS is defined.
> Do not terminate and do not print the exception.
> Case 2 : FILE STATUS is not defined :
> Print the exception and exit the execution
> (at the moment with return status 1. We maybe could
> /should return the actual status to allow scripts to check).
> Any USE declaratives for the file will be executed prior to following
> the above rules.
> Roger

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]