<Lots of good performance improvement comments snipped> One more time, Have you created either a SHARE requirement or a marketing REQUEST for any of the specific compiler changes to get performance improvements in Enterprise COBOL (specifically those using higher ALS instructions)?
If not, why not? I suppose you might think that IBM should constantly be looking at the generated object code from the compiler looking for performance improvements. Again, this might be nice, but it is highly unlikely to happen. If, on the other hand, you have specific suggestions and you submit them to IBM via any of the numerous ways of making such suggestions, then they MIGHT get into the development stream. Especially, when you include wording (like that snipped) that included, "this might be worth paying for a version upgrade" P.S. Just because it was in part of the "snipped" notes, IBM has given a positive response to the SHARE requirement for adding DFP support to COBOL. They have, however, rejected adding BFP support. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
