What's causing VSAM error 94?
in [Cobol]
|
From: Fred on 8 Jan 2006 20:21 I received a 94 error on a read-next of an alternate index file. I could not find error 94 in the documentation, but found a reference to it on the Internet. It's either reading past EOF, which I proved was not the case. Or -- It pertains to too many pointers. Has anyone seen this error before? -Thanks
From: William M. Klein on 8 Jan 2006 23:41 All "9x" file status codes are "implementor defined". To get a reasonable answer, please provide compiler vendor, release/version, and operating system. -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "Fred" <itfred(a)cdw.com> wrote in message news:pan.2006.01.09.01.21.54.295293(a)cdw.com... >I received a 94 error on a read-next of an alternate > index file. I could not find error 94 in the documentation, > but found a reference to it on the Internet. It's either > reading past EOF, which I proved was not the case. Or -- > It pertains to too many pointers. Has anyone seen this > error before? > > > -Thanks >
From: William M. Klein on 8 Jan 2006 23:47 OOPS, I just noticed "VSAM" in the subject line (not the text). This (almost certainly) means IBM mainframe environment. According to http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/igy3mg30/4.7.1.7.4 a "94" with CMPR2 corresponds to a "46" with NOCMPR2. Are you using a (currently unsupported) compiler such as OS/VS COBOL, VS COBOL II, or IBM COBOL for "this or that" (with CMPR2). If so, this MAY be part of your problem. According to: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/igy3mg30/4.1.7 a 94 (when it was still supported) meant, "Sequential READ attempted with no valid next record " How did you "prove" that you weren't past EOF? -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:oQlwf.209706$H26.208339(a)fe07.news.easynews.com... > All "9x" file status codes are "implementor defined". To get a reasonable > answer, please provide compiler vendor, release/version, and operating system. > > -- > Bill Klein > wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com > "Fred" <itfred(a)cdw.com> wrote in message > news:pan.2006.01.09.01.21.54.295293(a)cdw.com... >>I received a 94 error on a read-next of an alternate >> index file. I could not find error 94 in the documentation, >> but found a reference to it on the Internet. It's either >> reading past EOF, which I proved was not the case. Or -- >> It pertains to too many pointers. Has anyone seen this >> error before? >> >> >> -Thanks >> > >
From: Fred on 9 Jan 2006 17:58 On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:47:22 +0000, William M. Klein wrote: > "Sequential READ attempted with no valid next record " > > How did you "prove" that you weren't past EOF? The file has a "high-values" record as the last record. I also have displays in the program that show me what key I am trying to read. After the program abended, I dumped any records with a key greater than what I was reading and there were over 400. I don't know what compiler we are using. I would have to ask my DBA about that. Thanks
From: William M. Klein on 9 Jan 2006 19:15 You should get the compiler name in the listing when you do a compile. Are you reading the file via the PRIMARY key or an alternate key? I can imagine that there are more keys via one, but not the other. Again, this is all that a "94" was supposed to mean. -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "Fred" <itfred(a)cdw.com> wrote in message news:pan.2006.01.09.22.58.57.141327(a)cdw.com... > On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:47:22 +0000, William M. Klein wrote: >> "Sequential READ attempted with no valid next record " >> >> How did you "prove" that you weren't past EOF? > > > The file has a "high-values" record as the last record. I also have > displays in the program that show me what key I am trying to read. After > the program abended, I dumped any records with a key greater than what I > was reading and there were over 400. > > I don't know what compiler we are using. I would have to ask my > DBA about that. > > Thanks
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Data Representation in COBOL Next: free implementation? factorial? |