Re: CHGPF and "Pointer not set for location referenced." error

Suggesting an error like msgMCH3601 occurs without any supporting details has as much worth as asking why your car will not start without any supporting details.

A /machine/ exception is always issued to a program [and module and procedure], either from a LIC program or as part of an error within the program itself. In the latter case, the names are manifest the same, both as from\to, such that the /from/ information is omitted. In the former case the error might be from program dbdoesstuff and to program qdbchgfi module dostuff procedure doit. Only knowing the full context of that information can any worthwhile comment be made about the error that was received; i.e. what was all the _do_ stuff doing, as can be inferred by the program, module, and procedure names. Additionally anything specific about the database file network and attributes of the PF [such as triggers, identity, blob, etc.] that might be unique for the failing file as compared to other files that do not exhibit the same failure would add supporting details which might help to identify either a circumvention or the origin of the problem.

Aside from an error with the db file, the db cross reference, or the dbf network, the MCH3601 in an IBM program is almost surely a defect condition, or would be found to be a /problem with the file [network]/ when reported to your service provider. If not a defect, or if the result of an old defect which is merely being manifest visibly in this manner, the recovery is typically to delete and recreate the file, using whatever method of data recovery is appropriate for the individual situation.

Regards, Chuck

Mike Cunningham wrote:

I was doing some database work last night and ran CHGPF against 6 PFs
successfully but then I ran it on one file it was not happy and
issued a pair of "Pointer not set for location referenced." errors
(MCH3601), no other lower level errors. The CHGPF command failed on a
development version of this file and the production version. I
removed the new field I was adding from the source and got the same
error. Found a hit for PFT SI23243 which we already have applied and
SI31599 which we did not so I applied that and still got the error.
Has anyone seen this error before and have a workaround?

Running V5R4