-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
WIP: allow OCCURS DEPENDING ON with REDEFINES clauses
#259
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: gnucobol-3.x-mf-aix
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -282,6 +282,7 @@ self-call-recursive: skip | |
| record-contains-depending-clause: unconformable | ||
| defaultbyte: 0 # not verified yet, but likely to be as IBM | ||
| picture-l: unconformable | ||
| odo-in-redefines: unconformable # to be checked | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. checked, unconformable |
||
|
|
||
| # use fixed word list, synonyms and exceptions specified there | ||
| reserved-words: BS2000 | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -280,6 +280,7 @@ self-call-recursive: skip | |
| record-contains-depending-clause: obsolete | ||
| defaultbyte: 0 | ||
| picture-l: ok | ||
| odo-in-redefines: unconformable # to be checked | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. checked: unconformable |
||
|
|
||
| # use fixed word list, synonyms and exceptions specified there | ||
| reserved-words: GCOS | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -285,6 +285,7 @@ self-call-recursive: skip | |
| record-contains-depending-clause: unconformable | ||
| defaultbyte: 0 # not verified, but likely like IBM | ||
| picture-l: unconformable | ||
| odo-in-redefines: unconformable # to be checked | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Haven't found anything about it in its COBOL Reference Guide [that's in windows HLP format...] it has some rules on In any case that would be |
||
|
|
||
| # use fixed word list, synonyms and exceptions specified there | ||
| reserved-words: realia | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -300,6 +300,7 @@ self-call-recursive: skip | |
| record-contains-depending-clause: obsolete | ||
| defaultbyte: none # "not specifically defined in Standard COBOL" | ||
| picture-l: unconformable | ||
| odo-in-redefines: unconformable # to be checked | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. xopen is only stricter than cobol85+amendment, so that's unconformable |
||
|
|
||
| # obsolete in COBOL85 and currently not available as dialect features: | ||
| # 1: All literal with numeric or numeric edited item | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the warning is only raised when compiled with "cautions enabled" - so it should be "ok" here (and a possible cobc_acu wrapper will take the necessary
-aparameter and translate it which will include-fodo-in-redefines=warning)... but for larger-redefines it should actually be
warning- please adjust that when changing this file