Re: Help request: COBOL Compile, Link and Go
|
On Saturday, 21 November 2020, 3:14:06 pm AEDT, Greg Price <procegrog@...> wrote:
On 2020-11-21 6:57 AM, Tim via groups.io wrote: >> in FORTRAN the card punch is unit 7 >Ah yes - that sounds familiar - thanks Tim! >> >> I wouldn't have a clue about the paper tape reader >I was thinking it might be 2 if there is such a convention - memories >are hazy... >I think all of those low numbers initially had a conventional assignment.
Did the S360 have a paper tape reader? I had never heard of one, but then I was an applications programmer/analyst - never a systems programmer, and I never knew much about mainframe hardware
>I think VS FORTRAN has or had a customisable upper unit number limit.? >Applications would crash off if they tried to use a unit number higher >than was configured.? We just used to make it 99, IIRC.
Yes VS Fortran did have a customisable upper unit number. I found that out when the systems guys put in a new version of VS Fortran, and one of our programs promptly aborted with an invalid unit number message, or something like that. I just looked at some of my old JCL members (which I copied to a CD before the mainframe was decommissioned where I used to work) and in one of the FORTRAN ones I made a comment that you needed to specify UNTABLE=99 in the VSFORTL macro (not that I really know what that means..).
Ever since that occasion, the first thing I did when they put in a new version of VS Fortran was to run a small test program that used unit number 80! (I can't remember why I didn't use 99 - perhaps 80 was the highest unit number we used).
>Cheers, >Greg
Tim
|
