My meager understanding of compiling is that it is a multi-phase process
internally. code generation is the second last phase. the last phase
being reporting, i.e. the listing etc.
One would not want to generate C but whatever the stuff is that C produces
in its parse+ portion, before it does
On 13 Oct 2009 09:58:31 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
My meager understanding of compiling is that it is a multi-phase process
internally. code generation is the second last phase. the last phase
being reporting, i.e. the listing etc.
One would not want to generate C but whatever
This new article in zJournal might be of some interest in the context of
this thread:
http://www.zjournal.com/index.cfm?section=articleaid=1231
Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
http://dovetail.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Why can't Cobol use the C code generator?
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu wrote on 10/09/2009
04:55:20 PM:
Meanwhile, IBM spends considerable effort in optimizing its C/C++
compilers. Customers with C and C++ applications have more alternatives
to Big Iron.
On 12 Oct 2009 10:37:56 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Kirk Talman
wrote:
Why can't Cobol use the C code generator?
IBM could write a parser to generate optimal C/C++ code from COBOL but
that would be a large investment and might not produce as good results
as the current compiler parser
IBM needs to keep optimizing the c/c++ compiler to support *nix/windows
server consolidation onto zLinux.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.cawrote:
On 12 Oct 2009 10:37:56 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Kirk Talman
wrote:
Why can't Cobol use the C code
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
Re:
Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
Re:
Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?
IBM needs to keep optimizing the c
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
Re:
Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions
A COBOL compiler that runs on Linux (including Linux for System z) does
produce intermediate C code, before running it through GCC. It is not
technically considered a GCC based COBOL, though. Take a look at
OpenCOBOL, http://www.opencobol.org.
There was some work done some years ago on GCC
Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote in message
news:mq7tc51ajbefs2n1tc5e769m2gb2aep...@4ax.com...
On 8 Oct 2009 14:08:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
snip
It could be done
much snippage
For those in IBM-MAIN who don't follow such things. Clark has had long
Wrong equations :-)
What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the
COBOL compiler?
Back in the day when there was fierce PCM competition, you could add
new instructions and then spend money in compiler exploitation as a
competitive advantage. Now the business case is a
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Kirk Wolf k...@dovetail.com wrote:
Wrong equations :-)
What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the
COBOL compiler?
Back in the day when there was fierce PCM competition, you could add
new instructions and then spend money in compiler
To add even more topic-skew, no mention of a full blown COBOL port to
zLinux with ahem.. CICS.
JC
= On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Kirk Wolf k...@dovetail.com wrote:
= Wrong equations :-)
= What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the
= COBOL compiler?
=
= Back in the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 9:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
Re:
Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit
Andrews
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 9:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
Re:
Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?
Snipped
I'll bet I could rent some nice office space and hire a small team
Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to
implement 64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit
Websphere, the failure to implement USAGE BIT, the failure to
implement the IBM pushed decimal floating point, the failure to
implement IEEE floating point using the 2002
snip---
Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to implement
64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit Websphere, the
failure to implement USAGE BIT, the failure to implement the IBM pushed
... amazing ..concept.
today your lucky...with others... to run from one release to another
without major problems ..
From:
Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net
To:
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date:
10/08/2009 04:07 PM
Subject:
Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent.
COBOL 4.1
On 8 Oct 2009 14:08:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
snip---
Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to implement
64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit Websphere, the
failure to
20 matches
Mail list logo
