[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [open-cobol-list] OpenCOBOL release 1.0
From: |
Alain |
Subject: |
Re: [open-cobol-list] OpenCOBOL release 1.0 |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:20:26 +0100 |
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>
Message not available
Re: [open-cobol-list] OpenCOBOL release 1.0, Ben Duncan, 2007/12/29