EDU> on behalf of
Edward Gould <edgould1...@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 5:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How does ABO report its outcome? (was: Migrating Cobol)
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Bill Woodger <bill.wood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Without any
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:31:11 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote:
>
>>There is a new listing when a program is processed by ABO, and this listing
>>is used by IBM Fault Analyzer, but it is not used by LE. For CEEDUMP, you
>>would manually map the offset to the line number.
>
>So what you're saying is
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
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Bill Woodger 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
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
>There is a new listing when a program is processed by ABO, and this listing
is used by IBM Fault Analyzer, but it is not used by LE. For CEEDUMP, you
would manually map the offset to the line number.
So what you're saying is that an optional chargeable product knows how to
handle problems
>To help search engines: ABO = Automatic Binary Optimizer
>>We haven't set off down the yellow-brick ABO road, so it's hard to gauge h=
>>ow much angst we'll actually have to overcome. I'm pretty sure it won't be =
>>trivial.
>I haven't seen ABO in action yet. Is there a listing that relates
>As far as finding the source statement, yes this is possible with ABO.
>
>We run IBM's Fault Analyzer and it has PTFs that make it compatible with ABO
>optimized code. So, this tool can go through the updated 'listing' file
>produced as part of the ABO output to help get back to the original
>I think a lot of it will depend on 'how good is your COBOL?'. Yeah define
>good. Anyway using 'IBM ABO software' did find an .html Knowledge Center
>link.
>
>https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSERQD_1.2.0/c
>om.ibm.opt.doc/ug/troubleshooting.html
That basically answers my
The output listing from the ABO process is designed to mesh with the output
from the original compile.
If it doesn't, or there are difficulties, problems, suggestions for
improvement, let IBM know.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:45 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How does ABO report its outcome? (was: Migrating Cobol)
So ABO optimizes LOAD modules.
Optimized applications created with Automatic Binary
Hunkeler
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 10:36 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: How does ABO report its outcome? (was: Migrating Cobol)
>
> To help search engines: ABO = Automatic Binary Optimizer
>
> >We haven't set off down the yellow-brick ABO road, so it's har
I think a lot of it will depend on 'how good is your COBOL?'. Yeah define
good. Anyway using 'IBM ABO software' did find an .html Knowledge Center
link.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSERQD_1.2.0/c
om.ibm.opt.doc/ug/troubleshooting.html
In a message dated 3/27/2017 12:36:14
To help search engines: ABO = Automatic Binary Optimizer
>We haven't set off down the yellow-brick ABO road, so it's hard to gauge how
>much angst we'll actually have to overcome. I'm pretty sure it won't be
>trivial.
I haven't seen ABO in action yet. Is there a listing that relates the
14 matches
Mail list logo