× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.




     John, 
     
     We too are developing on CISC v3r2. I use both CAT and Eval and 
     have not noticed anyting out of the ordinary. Are you using some 
     sort of pre-compile utility (RPG free) or routing entries to do 
     something before compile? Are you /COPYing code that might be 
     modifying this field? Are you perhaps using basing pointers that 
     could be at fault?
     
     Eric DeLong


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: CAT bug in ILE RPG 
Author:  <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > at INET_WACO
Date:    11/13/98 11:03 AM



>>Has anyone else run across bugs with the CAT operation code in RPG IV? 
>>Using CAT in some situations gives us unpredictable results, such as 
>>fields being concatenated in the wrong order.  (However, if instead we use 
>>EVAL and the plus sign on these same fields to concatenate them, the 
>>program works fine!)
>>
>> field1  CAT  field2:0   resultfld
>>          CAT  field3:0   resultfld
>>             .
>>             .
>>             .
>>          CAT  field9:0   resultfld
>>
>>The above does not work!! 
>>
>>But the following does work (we use %trimr because all 9 fields have 
>>trailing blanks):
>>
>>         EVAL     resultfld=%trimr(field1)+%trimr(field2)+ ...
>>+%trimr(field9)
>  >>
>  >Each of the nine fields that I am concatenating is a 4-byte character 
>  >string containing zero, one, or two numeric characters left-justified, 
>  >and then padded on the right with blanks.  The result field is a 
>  >16-character blank field.
>  >(It just so happens that the 3rd and 9th fields are always blanks.)
>  >In this example, in the interest of simplication, I have represented the
>  >numeric contents of the 9 fields with uppercase alphabetic characters, 
>  >and represented the blanks with lowercase "b"s.
>  >
>  >Abbb  CDbb   bbbb   EFbb   GHbb   JKbb   LMbb   NPbb   bbbb
>  >
>  >Per this example, the result field will always contain the following:
>  >
>  >ACDbbGHJKLMNPEFG
>  
>  I have some converted code that uses lots of CATs so I was interested in 
>  this. 
>  When I run this example, my results turn out properly.  I've never had 
>  operations like this go "out of order".   Just to satisfy my curiosity, 
>  I recompiled my code at OPTIMIZE(*FULL) and tried again: worked fine.  
>We're at V4R3, ptf level 98279.  This is clearly an example (i.e.
>  not your production code.)  Are you certain that the fields in your 
>  production code are being CATted in the order you think?  Did the compile 
> fail, and your object code doesn't match the source you're looking at?  
> Dumb questions, but I've only found one compiler bug in 20 years.
>  I always think of the code having a problem before I think of the compiler 
>  having a problem...
>  
>  Buck Calabro

Thanks, Buck for your response, and that certainly was the prudent thing to do
-- i.e., test your programs given that you use CAT so extensively.  Your
questions are not dumb at all -- my having been in product development for 22
years myself, those would be my first questions too.  But the answer is that
we have concatenated the fields in the correct order, compiled the programs,
switched back to using the EVAL with plus sign, and back again to CAT, several
times.  Always the results are good with EVAL and incorrect with CAT.  And we
have had other problems with CAT in the past that we dismissed at the time,
and/or for expediency's sake had to work around with some other method.  The
BIG difference between your system and ours, it seems, is that we are still on
a CISC box, using V3R2...  By the way, there are several compiler bugs we've
uncovered over the years, especially when I was leading a software development
team for an IBM Business Partner, and so even though compiler/operating system
bugs are always the LAST things we consider in our troubleshooting, it has
happened enough times for me that I never discount it.  

Anyone else who has experienced CAT problems??  We haven't been able to find
any PTF's that address such a bug...

John Rodrigues
American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery Foundation
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---



+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.