|
Bruce, "YES!!!!!". That did it - exactly what we needed. Many thanks. And thanks to all for your time and support! Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Vining" <bvining@us.ibm.com> To: <cobol400-l@midrange.com> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:24 PM Subject: Re: IP Address Conversion using an IBM API > > Jay, > > To the best of my knowledge (and I'm not in COBOL development or that much > of a COBOL coder so my knowledge is certainly not the final word here) > COBOL treats all binary data as signed. One rather indirect way to display > the correct numeric value (and I'm sure there are better ones but this came > quickly to mind) would be to: > > 01. ApiReturnLong PIC S9(18) binary. > 01. ApiReturnMap redefines ApiReturnLong. > 05. ApiFiller PIC S9(9) binary. > 05. ApiReturn PIC S9(9) binary. > > Displaying ApiReturnLong (as in eval using debug) would then show > 0000000003326352740. > > Of course you would only need to do this if you really need to display the > numeric value. To use the value in other APIs you would just use ApiReturn > as it does have the correct value (when interpreted by other APIs as > unsigned). > > Bruce > > > > > > "Jay Sulzmann" > <jsulzmann@HBS-INC To: <cobol400-l@midrange.com> > .COM> cc: > Sent by: Subject: Re: IP Address Conversion using an IBM API > cobol400-l-admin@m > idrange.com > > > 05/24/2002 10:39 > AM > Please respond to > cobol400-l > > > > > > > Bruce, > > Wow - thanks. It probably is a typo on my part. > > Now that we know the COBOL is getting the correct result in a different > form, can you suggest an algorithm for putting it in the correct form? > > Much appreciate -- Jay > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bruce Vining" <bvining@us.ibm.com> > To: <cobol400-l@midrange.com> > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:24 AM > Subject: Re: IP Address Conversion using an IBM API > > > > > > Jay, > > > > I am not able to reproduce your exact values. You mention that in RPG > you > > get 3326352740 which would map to 198.68.29.100. When I try your COBOL > > program using 198.68.29.100 I get -968614556 (which is close to your > > reported -989614556, but not quite the same). > > > > Now -968614556 is x'C6441D64', which when used as an unsigned integer is > > 3326352740 so you are getting the same returned data. It's just being > > treated as signed in COBOL and unsigned in RPG. So assuming one of the > > values in your note was a typo, you are getting the same results. > > > > Bruce > > > > _______________________________________________ > This is the COBOL Programming on the iSeries/AS400 (COBOL400-L) mailing > list > To post a message email: COBOL400-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cobol400-l > or email: COBOL400-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/cobol400-l. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > This is the COBOL Programming on the iSeries/AS400 (COBOL400-L) mailing list > To post a message email: COBOL400-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cobol400-l > or email: COBOL400-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/cobol400-l. > >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.