There is a standard techniq On 10/1/14, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > That's weird, because that is one of the things that an *optimizing* > compiler tends to notice: hey, I tried to optimize this, and when I did I > optimized it right out of existence! > > Have you tested with full optimization on? > > (My remarks are general in nature and not specific to this compiler.) > > Charles > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Greg Shirey > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 2:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL v5.1 Implemented? > > John, > > We're almost to the point to begin trying to measure performance > improvement, so if I find anything significant I'll post it later, but have > you seen the SHARE presentation from Tom Ross where he documents how > performance improvements are achieved? It's informative, and can help > guide > you in what to look for. > > As far as other glitches, I posted a message yesterday about the absence of > IGYOP messages, and specifically IGYOP3091-W. In further experimenting, we > have discovered that it's not just that the message isn't being produced, > it's that the code that can never be executed is not being discarded as it > was in COBOL 4.2. So, there's no message about it because the compiler is > no longer doing what it used to do. We intend to open a PMR in the morning > and see what response that yields. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >
-- John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
