IBM Mainframe Forum

Hi,

Kindly let me know the use of SYSUT1, SYSUT2, SYSUT3, SYSUT4, SYSUT5, SYSUT6, SYSUT7 in Cobol Compiler.

I know like all are work files for to process the compilation. In case of IEBGENER, SYSUT1 was the input and SYSUT2 was the output.

Kindly let me know the use of each system utility dd statements individually.

Also let me know If I add SYSUT8 What will happen to the compiler.

Check section 2.1.4.1 of the COBOL Programming Guide manual for a description of how each of the SYSUTn DD names are used. Feel free to add SYSUT8 if you want to -- it will not be used by the compiler, but extra DD statements don't generally have any impact on a program (although if you have too many extra DD statements, you could run into system limits -- but we're talking thousands of DD statements in that case).

Hi,

I had gone through the manual. They provided like all the SYSUT statements are used to process the compilation.

But I need to know the exact use of each SYSUT statements Individually.

What is the use of SYSUT1
What is the use of SYSUT2
.
.
.
.
.
.
What is the use of SYSUT7?

Hope you understood now friend.

Awaiting with eager.

But I need to know the exact use of each SYSUT statements Individually.

No, you WANT to know the exact use of each, you do not NEED to know -- as long as the compiler is working, who cares? Unless you are working for IBM on the COBOL compiler, there is pretty much no chance you will find out more than what is in the manual already. SYSUT5 is obviously used during processing of COPY statements based on section 2.1.4.1 of the COBOL Programming Guide while SYSUT7 is used during generation of the program listing. SYSUT1, SYSUT2, SYSUT3, SYSUT4, and SYSUT6 are work files used by the compiler -- and that is all you need to know about them. These files are not used like IEBGENER for copying data -- the compiler stores information in them but IBM has not told us exactly what is stored where, nor why.

As long as the compiler is working correctly, why would you think you need to know such ridiculous information -- the data is not going to be useful unless you are building a compiler of your own?