Tom, What about Cobol calling and using Hiperspaces.. we have customers who want us to relocate our subpool we build for messaging out of sp231 and up in 64bit storage. One small problem is we need persistence. Maybe we are a special case not sure.
Scott On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:31 PM Frank Swarbrick <[email protected]> wrote: > What are your thoughts on 31-bit COBOL calling 64-bit Swift, and vice > versa? > > ________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf > of Tom Ross <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 12:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: AMODE 64 COBOL > > As has been discussed, we are working on AMODE 64 COBOL in IBM COBOL > development and have been for some years now. Trying to get all the > players lined up has been a challenge. (IE: CICS, DB2, IMS, DFSORT, etc) > > Our understanding from the beginning was that AMODE 64 COBOL would be for > specialized cases, and not for general use. We have very few customers > requesting AMODE 64 COBOL, and it is for special cases like moving data > above the bar to do in memory searches of very large tables where the > performance benefit outweighs any other aspect. Currently these customers > are using AMODE 64 assembler for this specialized processing. > > We do not currently think that we would recommend AMODE 64 COBOL to > everyone. For example, if I took an AMODE 31 application and recompiled > all of the programs for AMODE 64 (just for fun, IE: no need for above the > bar data) the application would necessarily run slower. This is because > instead of 4-byte addresses the programs would be processing 8-byte > addresses. > For this reason alone, customers would most likely avoid AMODE 64 COBOL > unless they had a real need for it (IE: storage constraint with AMODE 31, > or need for improved performance for searching massive amounts of data in > memory) > > So far, we have not heard of COBOL customers with data storage constraints > below the BAR. We have heard of storage constraints for programs, > especially > in CICS, where multiple CICS regions are required to allow the sheer > numbers > of COBOL programs to be loaded below the BAR. This is an RMODE 64 > question, > as in ARRRMODE however, and I am focused on AMODE 64 for this posting. > > Because of all of this, we consider it acceptable to have some restrictions > on using AMODE 64 COBOL. We are also trying to do what we can to make it > easier to use AMODE 64 COBOL, but our general recommendation will most > likely > be to only use AMODE 64 COBOL if you really need it, not for general > purposes. > > Cheers, > TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- Scott Ford IDMWORKS z/OS Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
