On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:07, Edward Jaffe wrote: > > The PL/X compiler also generates 'poor' code. (It's one reason it's been > difficult to convince the 'powers that be' to establish a new Architectural > Level Set for z/OS.) > The balance between cost of development and cost of execution may be biased when the vendor pays for one and the customer for the other.
> IBM has hinted that they plan to address these compiler deficiencies--when is > anybody's guess. But, at least they admit there's a problem. That's the first > step... On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:11, John Gilmore wrote: > > The IBM optimizing machinery for C/C++ and PL/I is now shared, the > same for both compilers; and the effects of this sharing have been > mixed, mostly good and some few of them very bad. Sounds like an opportunity for PL/X to join the party. How's Metal/C? -- gil
