Re: Debugging COBOL ILE - a BUG? -- COBOL400-L


Thanks Bruce - I just learned something valuable, and any day something is 
learned, is a great day. Do you know if there is a PROCESS statement equal? 
I prefer to load the process statement with the compile options, then I 
don't have to remember to change the commands when I compile.  I guess I 
could look it up, but then how would we keep a discussion going? :-)

Jim Essinger
Senior Programmer/Analyst
Student Loan fund of Idaho
208-452-4058
esinger@fmtc.com

At 11:17 AM 7/30/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>on the compiler generation options *UNREF is the default. *NOUNREF is what
>you are looking for. The UNREF default says remove unreferenced variables
>from the symbol table.
>
>===========================================================
>R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr.
>  -- IBM Certified Specialist - AS/400 Administrator
>  -- IBM Certified Specialist - RPG IV Developer
>
>"America is the land that fought for freedom and then
>   began passing laws to get rid of it."
>
>      - Alfred E. Neuman
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Essinger <esinger@fmtc.com>
>To: COBOL400-L@midrange.com <COBOL400-L@midrange.com>
>Date: Monday, July 30, 2001 10:41 AM
>Subject: Re: Debugging COBOL ILE - a BUG?
>
>
> >Geir,
> >
> >This has always troubled me.  It has been that way in ILE COBOL as long as
> >I can remember.  If you don't access the variable in the program, you don't
> >get to see it in the debug.  I believe it has something to do with the
> >optimization that the ILE compiler does at compilation time.  It is VERY
> >annoying at times, but I have not found away around it, other than to name
> >the field in an operation in a part of code that will not be
> >executed.  MOVE Y to Y seems to work, does not destroy the contents, and
> >makes it available to debug.  I only use this during debugging, and then
> >remove it from production code.
> >
> >Jim Essinger
> >Senior Programmer/Analyst
> >Student Loan Fund of Idaho
> >208-452-4058
> >esinger@fmtc.com
> >
> >
> >At 02:18 PM 7/30/2001 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >>Hello.
> >>
> >>Does anyone know why a WORKING-STORAGE element definition on lowest level,
> >>is not available in the 'EVAL' command in the debugger, UNLESS IT IS
> >>REFFERED TO WITHIN PROCEDURE DIVISION?
> >>
> >>An example from real life:
> >>
> >>WORKING STORAGE SECTION.
> >>01 WS-FIELDS.
> >>       05 X                     PIC 9.
> >>       05 Y                     PIC 9.
> >>
> >>PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> >>MAIN SECTION.
> >>A-000.
> >>           move 1 to X        (note that Y is not reffered to)
> >>...
> >>debugging: EVAL X  gives result = 1 (OK)
> >>                         EVAL Y gives error message 'Identifier does not
> >> exist'
> >>
> >>In my example, the 'Y' got its value in return  from a called procedure,
> >>but was not available in the debugger neither before nor after tha call!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Mvh.
> >>
> >>Geir
> >
> >+---
> >| This is the COBOL/400 Mailing List!
> >| To submit a new message, send your mail to COBOL400-L@midrange.com.
> >| To subscribe to this list send email to COBOL400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> >| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
>COBOL400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> >| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
>david@midrange.com
> >+---END
> >
>
>+---
>| This is the COBOL/400 Mailing List!
>| To submit a new message, send your mail to COBOL400-L@midrange.com.
>| To subscribe to this list send email to COBOL400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
>| To unsubscribe from this list send email to COBOL400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
>| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
>+---END

+---
| This is the COBOL/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to COBOL400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to COBOL400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to COBOL400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---END