There was no suggestion attempted (for anything) just an explanation that if you have used options which augment the LE abend output (which should also include CEEDUMP) then ABO will leave those alone.
This was in reference to Peter's question posted immediately prior: "So what [is being said] is that an optional chargeable product knows how to handle problems with ABO optimized code, but the standard runtime environment does not? Really? What is the rationale behind?" Paid-for products can understand the ABO output. Base LE output with no TEST options is the same, ABO or non-ABO. You look at the listing. Just may involve looking at a different listing, or require looking at two listings. TEST options can augment LE abend-output. There's no substantial difference between the handling of an abending ABO'd program and a non-ABO'd program. "A little something" to merge original compile listing with ABO output listing could be useful for someone to write. On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:02:43 -0500, Edward Gould <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Bill Woodger <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Without any TEST option on the compile, LE gives you nothing but the offset >> of the failing instruction, then you find it in the compile listing. ABO >> gets you a new listing of the new code, a new place to consult for the >> offset. >> >> If you compile with TEST options, the code generated for those options still >> exists in the ABO'd program, and if from the original program that results >> in additional information in the LE dump, then it will still do so after the >> program has been ABO'd. > > >Bill: > >In the past we have found that compiling COBOL programs with test meant a hell >of a lot more run time and of course CPU usage went up as well. >I would *NEVER* suggest TEST in a production environment. > >Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
