And with assembler if you re-write it you are stuck with the new architecture, unless you keep the old assembler and the two are functionally equivalent (i.e., has not been enhanced since you re-wrote it).
With C or C++, if your boss says "we have to ship this to a customer with a z900" you just re-compile with ARCH(5) and you have it. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 1:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: C lang. embedded HLASM latest z/OS 2.1 On 23/10/2015 8:28 PM, Jerry Callen wrote: > As to rewriting HLASM code in C - if you mostly just groveling through > control blocks and using non-authorized services, why not? It'll make the > code more accessible by others, in many cases it's just as efficient, and - > it's fun! I would say it can be significantly more efficient. I've re-compiled C programs for new architecture and got a x2 performance improvement. You're not going to get that with assembler. You have to rewrite the program. The fly in the ointment is SYS1.MACLIB is in HLASM/PL/X and the DSECT converter tool is not perfect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
