IBM Mainframe Forum

Hello Experts,

I would need your help in understanding a behaviour in a code.One of an application processes like below (PFA the snapshot of the process and the sysout details.)
Added the process below as well. Could anyone kindly share info on why am i getting the last zero when the WS-VAR2 is moved to WS-VAR3? I can understand the reason for the first three zeroes but unable to get any idea on the last Zero.

 
Sysout Details:

INITIAL DISPLAY OF THE VARIABLES:          
AFTER MOVING WS-VAR1 TO WS-VAR2:    
AFTER MOVING WS-VAR2 TO WS-VAR3:    
(This fourth zero is in the last position of the decimal in  9(16)v9(2),Please refer attachment , it clearly states the details)                
             
Thanks a ton in advance!

Coded

You get the last zero because COBOL is making sure the value is unsigned by changing the X'40' to X'F0' (unsigned) in the last byte of the value. If you look at the pseudo-assembler generated by COBOL, you'll see this.

Attachments are discouraged on this forum due to viruses and many companies don't allow them to be downloaded. Use the Code button to place what you wanted to attach in your post.

These users thanked the author Robert Sample for the post:

Shanthi_Palani (Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:39 pm)

Shanthi_Palani,
Why would you assign a numeric PICTURE an initial value of SPACES?

Why would you assign a numeric PICTURE an initial value of SPACES?

because that' s the requirement/because it is in the specifications,
what else !?

It is a numeric-edited field, and a VALUE of SPACE is entirely valid. I'd not do it myself, but some people use it for print output where the value optionally appears (and then set the whole print line to space for the second record... or do the once-only line different from the normal way...).

However, with Enterprise COBOL that code would not produce that output. So you are not using Enterprise COBOL or you have some other code affecting the values which you have not shown.

So, which compiler are you using, and which operating system?

Don't you feel that calling things "VAR1" and the like are an absolutely dumb way writing programs (in any language)? I hope it is just for the demonstration...