Re: [open-cobol-list] Open COBOL Build 426 Not Finding, Modules

[Simon Sobisch]

> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:39:49 -0400
> From: Patrick <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] Open COBOL Build 426 Not Finding
>       Modules
> To: Marty Heyman <address@hidden>,
>       address@hidden
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Marty
>
> I am not much help to you , turns out I need help.
>
> I copied Brian's example from the site, (I don't know why but your email 
> took out the newlines)
>
> I downloaded and installed 426.
>
> Why does this show it's version 1.1 ? Aren't we into the 2.* series ?
>
> cobc -V
> cobc (GNU Cobol) 1.1.0
> Copyright (C) 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Keisuke Nishida
> Copyright (C) 2006-2012 Roger While
> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> Built     Sep 15 2014 10:24:16
> Packaged  Jan 20 2014 07:40:53 UTC
> C version "4.7.2"
>
> I had this error:
>
> cobc -x -lpq pgcob.cob
> pgcob.cob:58: Error: syntax error, unexpected NULL, expecting Identifier
>
> I haven't used null personally so I just created an variable null and 
> tried this:
> cobc -x -lpq pgcob.cob
> pgcob.cob:18: Error: syntax error, unexpected NULL, expecting EXTERNAL 
> or GLOBAL
>
> So it does have knowledge of null but doesn't expect it in this position.
>
> I am not much help yet but maybe you should post your version of gcc. 
> You could also compile it cobc -C and then use gcc in verbose mode so 
> that others would have more info.
>
> I have to work right now but I will try to figure out where I am stuck 
> and maybe I will be able to help after, but probably not :(
>
> Thanks

Hi Patrick,

it's not 100% clear what you mean with downloaded and installed 426. I
think you talk about the revision number but there are multiple branches
that are in r426.
The "soon trunk" is gnu-cobol-2.0 branch, while current trunk is 1.1
release (reportwriter branch isn't 2.1 (but the rw-parts from it will be
merged to trunk before 2.1 release), Ron Norman may should relabel it to
2.0).

The RETURNING NULL is a 2.x extension, therefore 1.1 errors out in the
sample given.

Simon