×
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.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:27 AM, <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark,
Read the fine print "field lengths are different". It didn't say new
fields were added to the end of the file. Do you REALLY want to use
LVLCHK(*NO) on that, or was it you and not rodents who ate the pretty
purple mushrooms growing on my compost pile?
The only change to QADSPOBJ I see between V5R3 and V5R4 is fields added to
the end of the record format. IBM seems to have adhered to their
time-tested policy of only changing system-supplied OUTFILEs by adding
fields, and specifying LVLCHK(*NO) as the default on the model files. If
the OUTFILE in question is really QADSPOBJ it would appear the problem is
not a field changed, but a field added. LVLCHK setting either way doesn't
matter. It would seem the code processing the new fields added for V5R4
needs to be conditional based on the run-time OS version.
OP needs to provide more details about the OUTFILE in use and the specifics
exception that makes the application 'bomb'.
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.
midrange.com
