-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of M. Ray Mullins
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 10:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC architecture level question
Since this is C++, I'd stick it in a constructor for m
char* argv[])
and cross your fingers" are NOT the right answers.)
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 7:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC architec
--Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 7:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC architecture level question
ARCH level is a "problem" I have dealt with for 12 or so ye
2023 5:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC architecture level question
Setting ARCH is like playing Blackjack or Twenty-one: guess too low and it is
sub-optimal; guess too high and you bust.
Note that everything we have said here about ARCH and TUNE applies equally to
COBOL
ERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 7:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC architecture level question
ARCH level is a "problem" I have dealt with for 12 or so years.
I say "problem" in quotes because it is not much of a proble
Monday, April 24, 2023 2:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC architecture level question
Thank you! Does that default change periodically? I suppose it must-is it
always such that the default supports the oldest currently supported
-
Gil wrote:
>A default of "oldest currently supported" is of little use on the day
>before end of support for that version. Better would be a form to
>specify "whatever version for which support is guaranteed for N days
>from the current date." Akin to the "find ... -mtime n".
Eh? Why is it "of
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:40:16 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>Thank you! Does that default change periodically? I suppose it must-is it
>always such that the default supports the oldest currently supported
>hardware? What we don't want to do is upgrade the compile and break our
>product for our
Linda Chui wrote:
>My colleague validated this issue. Yes, this is a documentation error.
>The default should be the same as the ARCH option description
>mentioned (page 63). We have notified our content editor to
>update/correct our docs.
>Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:24:25 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>SC14-7307-40, the z/OS 2.4 XL C/C++ User's Guide, says on PDF page 63 that
>ARCH(10) is the default. However, on PDF page 580, it also says:
>Architecture target is set according to the last-found instance of the
>-qarch compiler option,
10 matches
Mail list logo
