MVSFORUMS.com

Nancy · Beginner Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 77 Topics: 26

Hello,

In the following Table declaration, I am using OCCURS for 200 TIMES while the value of WC-MAX-NO-OF-PROD is 100.

05 WT-BILL-ACCT-TABLE OCCURS 1 TO 200 TIMES
DEPENDING
ON WC-MAX-NO-OF-PROD.
10 WT-BILL-ACCT-NO PIC X(016).
10 WT-BUS-TYP-COD PIC X(005).

Will it make any difference? Yes, thaen what?
In my final output, I just want to see 100 entries but right now it is displaying upto 200. Is it something due to this table declaration or I need to fix this bug in the code ?

Regards

kolusu · Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:26 am Post subject:

Nancy,

Nancy · Beginner Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 77 Topics: 26

Kolusu,
It might be the code bug but what I want to know is that if the table can really have 200 items even if the DEPENDING ON has a variable that can contain just 100 ?

kolusu · Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:03 am Post subject:

Nancy,

The contents of WT-BILL-ACCT-NO & WT-BUS-TYP-COD items whose occurrence numbers exceed the value of the WC-MAX-NO-OF-PROD( 100 in your case ) are undefined

Check this link which explains the OCCURS DEPENDING in detail

http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IGY3LR10/5.3.10.5?SHELF=&DT=20020920180651&CASE=

Hope this helps...

Cheers

Kolusu
_________________
Kolusu
www.linkedin.com/in/kolusu

Nancy · Beginner Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 77 Topics: 26

Thanks Kolusu. Its clear now.

Nancy · Beginner Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 77 Topics: 26

Kolusu,

I have one more doubt.

10 SIBRU503-ACCT-ARRAY.
15 SIBRU503-ACCT-LIST OCCURS 0 TO 100
DEPENDING ON SIBRU503-NO-OF-ACCT.
20 SIBRU503-ACNO PIC X(022).
20 SIBRU503-ACCT-SHRT-DESC PIC X(030).
20 SIBRU503-ACCT-TYP PIC X(003).
20 SIBRU503-RBA PIC X(022).

In the same program, this array should not have more than 100 items as per the OCCURS clause but if SIBRU503-NO-OF-ACCT has the value more than 100 say 110, then we are getting all the 110 accounts with the correct information of ACNO, ACCT-SHRT-DESC etc in output. Why it is so?

kolusu · Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:18 am Post subject:

Nancy,

Are you sure you are having 110 occurance despite the table being declared as max of 100 occurances? Did the pgm even compile? I am sure the compiler throws an error if you are try to load the table beyond max occurance.

Kolusu
_________________
Kolusu
www.linkedin.com/in/kolusu

Nancy · Beginner Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 77 Topics: 26

Yeah, I was expecting that but it did not happen and I got 110 accounts back. Just want to confirm if it is possible with this declaration.

calspach · Beginner Joined: 12 Jun 2006 Posts: 5 Topics: 0

It's not supposed to be. I'd say you have a compiler option turned off that should be on. I wish I could tell you which one. But, what is most likely happening since you are getting the data is that the data is overwriting whatever follows that declaration in working storage. In this case that may be ok, but it's surely not a good idea.

Nancy · Beginner Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 77 Topics: 26

Right. Just now I noticed that it is NOSSRANGE in my compiler option instead of SSRANGE to have the subscript values checked at run time to see if they are in range. I should get S0C4 if it is more than 100 accounts.

Thanks for your help.