For whatever its worth, though IBM XL C/C++ seems to be supplied as part of z/OS, it appears that it has to be "enabled" (I assume by purchasing a separate license.)
CCN0767(I) The "C/C++ " feature of z/OS is not enabled. Contact your system programmer. The above is true even if you specify option '-E' (Preprocesses but does not compile; output goes to stdout). >________________________________ > From: Bernd Oppolzer <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:31 PM >Subject: Re: Modifying compiler input > > >I don't really know it, but I believe that the C compiler is part of z/OS. >At least its versioning is the same as the z/OS versioning. > >But maybe it still needs a separate license. I don't know, because we >have it (and need it) for at least 20 years now (maybe more). > >The C preprocessor is in fact so restricted, that it can be used for >other tasks as well. When I worked at another site in my former life, they >used it there to build several variants of OS/2's CONFIG.SYS file before >doing the OS/2 clients' automatic startup from the network (the PCs first >booted a DOS opsys, then modified the CONFIG.SYS using the >C preprocessor of some DOS based C compiler, then booted OS/2). > >I believe, you could also modify COBOL sources using the C preprocessor, >but then you would have to code > >#include "xxx" > >instead of > >COPY XXX > >and: > >the macro facility using #define and #ifdef etc. is very limited. > >Of course, you could also use the PL/1 preprocessor, which can also >be run without the compiler, but probably you don't have it. > >There it is > >%INCLUDE XXX; > >I would like to check out, if it is possible (and if would make sense) >to combine the power of the PL/1 preprozessor with the COBOL language. >But at the moment we are a pure PL/1 shop, so I'm not able to do this. > >Kind regards > >Bernd > > > > >Am 04.06.2013 21:11, schrieb John McKown: >> COBOL does not seem to have anything like the PL/1 preprocessor. Or even >> the <shudder/> C preprocessor. Hum, I guess it would be possible to use the >> C preprocessor despite not having a C license. I don't know if it will run >> or not. In any case, this sort of preprocessor is not what I would really >> _love_. I would _love_ to get hold of the internal parse tree and be able >> to modify _that_. But I get quite strange at times. >> >> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
