Hmm, we always use the TEST compile option for production modules. This allows IBM Fault Analyzer to have access to the source code. I am not aware of any performance differences.
Frank ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Edward Gould <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 5:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: How does ABO report its outcome? (was: Migrating Cobol) > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
