Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Agreed apart from "the means". The original topic: "Does anyone know if this product, Automatic Binary Optimizer, will actually migrate Cobol V4 to V6 for you? Our IBM reps are telling us that it will actually do the migration for you." 100 different people contacting the "ABO Team" is also

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

David Crayford wrote: >Good point well made. Thanks, David. For the record, Amazon.com (the commerce site and associated commerce services) reportedly consists of a *mix* of programming languages: Java, C, C++, Perl, Ruby (on Rails), and Javascript. All of these programming languages are

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Yes, let's add Literature into the pot as well... The thing is, once a COBOL program is compiled, it is no longer a COBOL program. It is no longer at the whim of a misplaced full-stop (period), oblivious to whether a SECTION has been coded or a THRU has been used, the GO TO superficially

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

ll Woodger Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:20 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer We continue to add things to the bubbling pot that is a discussion started through the misunderstanding of some IBM sales staff. Tom Ross ventured close, dipp

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

ml#91 ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016f.html#92 ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016f.html#97 ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer I wrote a long tome on this 17Oct1980 for internal distribution ... about having single monolithic resource

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On 18/10/2016 12:55 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote: Bill Woodger wrote: For me, changing any compile option at the moment of going to Production invalidates all the testing up to that point. Then along comes Java :-) Good point well made. I strongly disagree with the word "all." I don't

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

We continue to add things to the bubbling pot that is a discussion started through the misunderstanding of some IBM sales staff. Tom Ross ventured close, dipped a spoon in the pot, and confirmed that there is no "source conversion" process for migration to V5/V6. Mmmm... he's either writing

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Bill Woodger wrote: >For me, changing any compile option at the moment of going to Production >invalidates all the testing up to that point. Then along comes Java :-) I strongly disagree with the word "all." I don't think that word in this sentence is grounded in a reasonable, rational,

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer/COBOL V5/V6 Migration

>ABO only creates an optimized LOAD MODULE (program object). It does not=20 >convert your source to V6, and it will not give you all the=20 >optimizations of V6. Your biggest payback is if you upgrade your CPU,=20 >then you can run your load modules through ABO and get some of the=20

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

There are a number of different items within this topic. "Just a recompile", where the object is expected to be identical, regression-tested? To my mind, no. It should be verified as identical. If it is not, the reason should be identified and what follows depends on what is found out. I

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

The advice I gave to anyone who would listen INSIDE IBM was: Publish information on the kinds of transformations ABO does. That would help build CONFIDENCE. My advice to anyone using it, which echoes what's been said here is: Test the ABO output to the extent you can. Of course ABO might get

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

No, that is not what I meant. It goes back to this: "[ABO] ... produces a functionally equivalent executable program", which is a claim somewhere within the ABO site. OK, I can see a search-box at the top of my screen (sorry, "page"). It is in the User's Guide for ABO. That is either some

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353 Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:00 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer I don’t know how other installations perform processor model upgrades, but our

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Here's Tom Ross: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/topic?id=6d98d469-5088-41ec-8926-34e945443891=25 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Well, if so leaky, let's hear a few. ABO does not know about PICtures. One of the limits to the optimisations available to it. Strictly, it could intuit some things, but it can't, because of REDEFINES large or small. -- For

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Great. Now we've got PL/I and Assembler in the mix. I do absolutely agree with Prino on "same everything throughout", at least after program testing. There are assorted (and growing) compiler options which should only live up to program testing (although there is not universal agreement).

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:32:05 -0500, Bill Woodger wrote: > >My interpretation is this: "If the program is written in such a way that it >complies with what is explicitly documented for the version of Enterprise >COBOL that the program was last compiled with, that documentation being the

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

"As to re-testing after recompile, if the resulting OBJ is the same, sure, no need. When can you expect that? Probably rarely, but that's only because there are often dates present in the output. So ignoring changes due to compile-date, changes in macros could affect things, so assume none of

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:50:11 +, Robert Prins wrote: > >Programs compiled with different optimization levels (and sometimes even other >compiler options) are not the same program! Period. Full stop. End of story! > Many possibilities. A race condition might be won by the wrong path when

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

"I believe COBOL V5 stated that recompile would work for correct programs. I don't know if that statement is true or not, or what exactly is definitively meant by "correct", but I think that ABO's more conservative approach is expected to work even for programs that do not work upon recompile

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:44:06 -0400, Peter Relson wrote: > >I believe COBOL V5 stated that recompile would work for correct programs. >I don't know if that statement is true or not, or what exactly is >definitively meant by "correct", but I think that ABO's more conservative >approach is

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On 2016-10-15 14:44, Peter Relson wrote: So, if someone compiles their COBOL program without optimization and tests it, then compiles it with optimization before putting it into production, does it need to be tested again? Well, it's an excellent question Tom, but needs to be directed to

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Splitting up the replies. "If by "certified" you basically mean "proved to be correct", how many realistic programs are ever provably correct (many non-realistic programs could be)? Surely a lot *are* correct, but could you prove it? I suspect that most software companies "warrant" (if an error

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

So, if someone compiles their COBOL program without optimization and tests it, then compiles it with optimization before putting it into production, does it need to be tested again? Well, it's an excellent question Tom, but needs to be directed to people at sites that do that :-) Pushed for

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Peter, The RC=4 thing was not directed at you. I don't think anyone with "experience" (being counted as just turning up for years, or "one year of experience many times") would be contributing to this list. I'm pointing out that "RC=4 is OK, get on with the test" is reasonably common. And

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:44:42 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: >On 13 October 2016 at 14:47, Bill Woodger wrote: >> >> No, it doesn't turn the machine-code (ESA/370) into anything intermediate. > >Are you quite sure? > No, actually I'm not. It would be

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Of Farley, Peter x23353 Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 11:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer Thanks Norman, but as I am not a sysprog I am not involved in those types of changes. I/we depend on our facilities management team to handle those issues. Peter

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

on Desertwiz Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 1:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer You should request the Hardware Buckets for microcode updates. Sometimes, there could be a necessary OS PTF to support/exploit new microcode. Is there a chance that microcode

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353 Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:00 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer I don’t know how other installations perform processor model upgrades

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On 14 October 2016 at 02:30, Timothy Sipples wrote: > No, not optimistic. Mere fact. Sun Microsystems made Java 1.0 generally > available for download on January 23, 1996, for the Windows 95, Windows NT, > and Solaris operating systems (three different operating systems

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

day, October 14, 2016 12:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:29:46 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: >Timothy, > >You missed two crucial issues: > >1. Auditors don't believe in "verification" and management r

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 9:31 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:29:46 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: >Timothy, > >You missed two c

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:29:46 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: >Timothy, > >You missed two crucial issues: > >1. Auditors don't believe in "verification" and management requires audits to >pass. IT does not control auditors (quite the reverse in fact). And we lowly >programmers have no input

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

nt processor architectures). That > was over two decades ago. re: http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016f.html#91 ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016f.html#92 ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer trivia: general manager of the sun business group responsible for java ha

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Timothy Sipples Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 2:30 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer With all that said, one has to be smart about when, where, how, and how much to test. Bill Woodger reminded me of an important fact, that if you're not smart about tes

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Tony Harminc wrote: >That seems a little, uh, optimistic. The Java Programming Language >book, and the corresponding Java Virtual Machine Specification, first >editions, were both published in 1996. No, not optimistic. Mere fact. Sun Microsystems made Java 1.0 generally available for download on

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Peter, You started with this: "Any program change requires full regression testing, including "just a recompile"." I'm saying that paying "lip-service" to audit requirements, and not confirming that the programs are exactly the same, is heading (potentially) for exactly what you don't want. If

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 1:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer On 13 October 2016 at 14:47, Bill Woodger <bill.wood...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No, it doesn't turn the machine-code (ESA/370) into anything

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On 13 October 2016 at 14:47, Bill Woodger wrote: > > No, it doesn't turn the machine-code (ESA/370) into anything intermediate. Are you quite sure? > Yes, it knows something of the internals, and yes it knows things it can and > can't do with that knowledge. > > "There

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:01:16 -0400, Farley, Peter wrote: >Bill, > >You do not comprehend the depth of the fear of failure in large, audited >business organizations. > >Also the "verification" you propose that we use for ABO output has no >programmed tool yet to perform the verification

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

you otherwise. I wouldn’t > buy it either if I were an auditor. > > Careful is not wasteful. Careful saves jobs and companies. > > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Bill Woodger

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

ailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Woodger Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer Peter, For a recompile, where the program is not expected to have changed even one iota, a regression-test is a very poor su

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Tony, "But the ABO product is certainly not just translating individual old instructions into newer ones. Rather, it is surely identifying COBOL paradigms based on some kind of pattern matching, and then retranslating those COBOLy things into modern machine code. Presumably it effectively

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Peter, For a recompile, where the program is not expected to have changed even one iota, a regression-test is a very poor substitute for verification. I'd be amazed if your tests would be extensive enough to pick that the program was different, whereas a comparison (masking or "reconciling"

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Closest to a guarantee is: "That may depend on how you take this claim: "[ABO] ... produces a functionally equivalent executable program"." I've taken that from a post of mine in the March 10 discussion here started by Skip. The Stupid PERFORM broke that.

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

1:23 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer Coming from the banking and Utilities background, it was required that any changes made in a production environment be tested prior to implementation, and include backout capabilities. While I believe that ABO can very much he

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Very little software comes with guarantees of "do no harm." Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:39:30 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: > >... But the ABO product is certainly not just translating >individual old instructions into newer ones. Rather, it is surely >identifying COBOL paradigms based on some kind of pattern matching, >and then retranslating those COBOLy things

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer The idea of making any kind of last-minute change just

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On 13 October 2016 at 06:41, Timothy Sipples wrote: > OK, about testing. For perspective, for over two decades (!) Java has > compiled/compiles bytecode *every time* a Java class is first instantiated. That seems a little, uh, optimistic. The Java Programming Language book,

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

:39 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer Call me conservative after many years in this business but I say Yes. In my experience optimization sometimes exposes bugs that previously were masked. I have little experience with COBOL, but COBOL

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

t: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer OK, about testing. For perspective, for over two decades (!) Java has compiled/compiles bytecode *every time* a Java class is first instantiated. The resulting native code is model optimized depending on the JVM release level's maximum model optimization ca

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 7:00 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 05:44:51 -0500, Bill Woodger wrote

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Well, it's an excellent question Tom, but needs to be directed to people at sites that do that :-) Pushed for an answer, I'd say "no". But, if you have and it ends up being the same asnwer as for ABO, which is why you've posed the question. IBM actually recommends slapping OPT on three

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

I'm not saying just instal the ABO and get on with it. I'm talking about per-program, beyond an initial "proving" stage (of the procedures for working, implementation, gauging actual improvement with actual programs, including even detailed work on "beast" programs). I'd also expect "parallel"

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 05:44:51 -0500, Bill Woodger wrote: >Recompiling a program with no changes. Do you "regression test"? No. ... So, if someone compiles their COBOL program without optimization and tests it, then compiles it with optimization before putting it into production, does it need

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

The logic is that if you've already ABO'd X-number of programs, you need to check for the stupid PERFORM. If located, fix the damn thing, then and there, test it, regression-test it, get it completed. Before ABO'ing, even if the code will "work", it is still garbage code (not ABO's fault).

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Recompiling a program with no changes. Do you "regression test"? No. You compare the object (masking the date/time). If it is the same (as in identical) - what would a regeression-test show? OK, compiler may have been patched. Doesn't matter. The executable code generated is the same.

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Bill Woodger wrote: >You (now) need to check for the stupid out-of-order PERFORM ... >THRU ... but otherwise you are good to go. I don't understand the logic. Yes, you ought to make sure that ABO PTF is applied. But look again at the APAR (PI68138): "ABO was fixed to correctly optimize input

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

AIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Karl S Huf Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:49 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer In our experience the need for PDSE datasets was far from the only difficulty in migrating to COBOL V5 (and that really wasn't the ha

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

age- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:38 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer > > The only difficulty in migration to Cobol

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

l...@garlic.com (Anne & Lynn Wheeler) writes: > count of latency to memory (& cache miss), when measured in count of > processor cycles is comparable to 60s latency to disk when measured in > count of 60s processor cycles. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016f.html#91 ABO

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On 10/12/2016 12:29 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: IBM is wrong. Tom is right. He lives for moments like this. ;-) I resemble that remark ;-) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Well, I'm still going to disagree on the level of "testing" required. You (now) need to check for the stupid out-of-order PERFORM ... THRU ... but otherwise you are good to go. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

sy > migration to a new compiler. > You could try a minor application and see how difficult in may be... > > zN > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Charles Mills > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer On 10/12/2016 10:50 AM, Lopez, Sharon wrote: > Does anyone know if this product, Automatic Binary Optimizer, will actually > migrate Cobol V4 to V6 for you? Our IBM reps are telling us that it will >

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

charl...@mcn.org (Charles Mills) writes: > Why is that useful? Because the speed gains in the last several generations > of mainframe are not in clock/cycle speed. System 370 object code does not > run any faster on a z13 than on a z10. The gains are in new instructions. > The same functionality

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

be... zN -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 8:48 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer Nope. Agree 100% with what @Tom says. The ABO

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer I suppose the cunning thing to do would be to write it into the contract, then you get IBM to do the migration to V6 "for free"... -- For IBM-MAIN

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Fix list for ABO. http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27047229#28062016 Looks good... except for one thing: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1PI68138 " * USERS AFFECTED: Users of the IBM

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer > > Mmmm... I wonder why they would say that? > > It takes the existing executable code of your Enterprise COBOL programs and > optimises them for new instructions available on ARCH(!0) and ARCH(11). > > So if you

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

I suppose the cunning thing to do would be to write it into the contract, then you get IBM to do the migration to V6 "for free"... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer Mmmm... I wonder why they would say that? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Mmmm... I wonder why they would say that? It takes the existing executable code of your Enterprise COBOL programs and optimises them for new instructions available on ARCH(!0) and ARCH(11). So if you hardware is up-to-date or so, it gives you a route for existing COBOL executables to take

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lopez, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 7:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer Does anyone know if this product, Automatic Binary Optimizer, will actually migrate

Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On 10/12/2016 10:50 AM, Lopez, Sharon wrote: Does anyone know if this product, Automatic Binary Optimizer, will actually migrate Cobol V4 to V6 for you? Our IBM reps are telling us that it will actually do the migration for you. Based on what I've read, it is a performance product and I

ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Does anyone know if this product, Automatic Binary Optimizer, will actually migrate Cobol V4 to V6 for you? Our IBM reps are telling us that it will actually do the migration for you. Based on what I've read, it is a performance product and I didn't see that capability. Thanks to everyone in