Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
Hello, There is a vendor BP that does this sort of thing with an automated tool. Mitch -Original Message- From: W Mainframe <01304632a58d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Sat, Jul 9, 2022 9:23 am Subject: Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help Hi,A suggestion... I did similar thing some years ago using z390 Macro Language. In summary you can create macros and replace used macros by Cobol statements.The macros just punch Cobol statements to an output.I converted about 250 critical Cobol code.Main question... Is it 100%, of course not... But I would say 75%. RegardsDan Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, July 8, 2022, 8:53 PM, Paul Gilmartin <042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 22:51:38 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > > ... The business logic was totally scrambled, sometimes by "old-timer" >tricks like non-reentrant branch gates and other such no-no's under current >maintainability and pipeline-flush avoidance rules, other times just by >flagrantly awful spaghetti code even a human would struggle to understand. > Was that merely faithfully replicating deficiencies in the input? What architecture level? What might it do with such as RISBG? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
Run some hairy test cases and evaluate the outputs for, e.g., completeness, effort for manual recodeing of anything not automatically converted, efficiency, readability, maintainability. It's a lot harder to do it well than to just do it. Using a program that only translates 75% of a module might require more manpower than translating the whole thing manually. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Tom Ross [tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 6:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Converting assembler to COBOL help Greetings mainframers! This has porobbaly been asked and answered, but are there tools or companies that can convert or help to rewrite assembler applications or just programs into COBOL? Any suggestions? Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << AKA: Captain COBOL, Tom Ross -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
Automatic conversion of assembler code has been around for decades. And, yes, it is a bear for complicated architectures and a lot of work even for simple machines. BTDT,GTA. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 [031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2022 2:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help That's a reasonable suggestion. Many pitfalls to watch out for (like the branch gates example I gave earlier), but like you said, possibly 75% coverage for the code portion. System macro conversion could be a big headache too, but at least feasible to try. Trickier could be conversion of the DSECT and non-reentrant variable storage area definitions. I would expect much of that to need careful human review and manual adjustment. Unlike HLL's, assembler allows many hardware-specific "tricks" that make automated analysis, like classical compiler construction to generate "parse trees" and "directed graphs" and such, much more difficult. It may be possible to do, but the work involved to create and validate such a beast would be massive. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of W Mainframe Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2022 10:23 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help Hi,A suggestion... I did similar thing some years ago using z390 Macro Language. In summary you can create macros and replace used macros by Cobol statements.The macros just punch Cobol statements to an output.I converted about 250 critical Cobol code.Main question... Is it 100%, of course not... But I would say 75%. RegardsDan Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, July 8, 2022, 8:53 PM, Paul Gilmartin <042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 22:51:38 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > > ... The business logic was totally scrambled, sometimes by "old-timer" >tricks like non-reentrant branch gates and other such no-no's under current >maintainability and pipeline-flush avoidance rules, other times just by >flagrantly awful spaghetti code even a human would struggle to understand. > Was that merely faithfully replicating deficiencies in the input? What architecture level? What might it do with such as RISBG? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
Apologies, you are probably correct. Bad habits acquired dealing with management who don’t like that method. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2022 2:18 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 18:10:54 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: >Answers in the order of your questions: > Wouldn't it be more legible to interleave your answers rather than "in the order of ..."? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
That's a reasonable suggestion. Many pitfalls to watch out for (like the branch gates example I gave earlier), but like you said, possibly 75% coverage for the code portion. System macro conversion could be a big headache too, but at least feasible to try. Trickier could be conversion of the DSECT and non-reentrant variable storage area definitions. I would expect much of that to need careful human review and manual adjustment. Unlike HLL's, assembler allows many hardware-specific "tricks" that make automated analysis, like classical compiler construction to generate "parse trees" and "directed graphs" and such, much more difficult. It may be possible to do, but the work involved to create and validate such a beast would be massive. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of W Mainframe Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2022 10:23 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help Hi,A suggestion... I did similar thing some years ago using z390 Macro Language. In summary you can create macros and replace used macros by Cobol statements.The macros just punch Cobol statements to an output.I converted about 250 critical Cobol code.Main question... Is it 100%, of course not... But I would say 75%. RegardsDan Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, July 8, 2022, 8:53 PM, Paul Gilmartin <042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 22:51:38 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > > ... The business logic was totally scrambled, sometimes by "old-timer" >tricks like non-reentrant branch gates and other such no-no's under current >maintainability and pipeline-flush avoidance rules, other times just by >flagrantly awful spaghetti code even a human would struggle to understand. > Was that merely faithfully replicating deficiencies in the input? What architecture level? What might it do with such as RISBG? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 18:10:54 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: >Answers in the order of your questions: > Wouldn't it be more legible to interleave your answers rather than "in the order of ..."? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
Answers in the order of your questions: In most cases, yes, but the COBOL implementation chosen was MUCH worse than the original, far less readable or maintainable, and in many cases unnecessarily more complicated. The converted assembler code was decades old, all pre-2000, so ESA at best, and most probably at XA level or earlier. Nothing of the "newer" instruction sets (FSVO "new") was present in any of the converted assembler source that I was asked to review. In all the cases that I reviewed, the code being converted could have run on the earliest 370 hardware and in some cases on 360 hardware. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 7:54 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 22:51:38 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > >... The business logic was totally scrambled, sometimes by "old-timer" > tricks like non-reentrant branch gates and other such no-no's under current > maintainability and pipeline-flush avoidance rules, other times just by > flagrantly awful spaghetti code even a human would struggle to understand. > Was that merely faithfully replicating deficiencies in the input? What architecture level? What might it do with such as RISBG? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
Hi,A suggestion... I did similar thing some years ago using z390 Macro Language. In summary you can create macros and replace used macros by Cobol statements.The macros just punch Cobol statements to an output.I converted about 250 critical Cobol code.Main question... Is it 100%, of course not... But I would say 75%. RegardsDan Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, July 8, 2022, 8:53 PM, Paul Gilmartin <042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 22:51:38 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > > ... The business logic was totally scrambled, sometimes by "old-timer" >tricks like non-reentrant branch gates and other such no-no's under current >maintainability and pipeline-flush avoidance rules, other times just by >flagrantly awful spaghetti code even a human would struggle to understand. > Was that merely faithfully replicating deficiencies in the input? What architecture level? What might it do with such as RISBG? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 22:51:38 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > >... The business logic was totally scrambled, sometimes by "old-timer" > tricks like non-reentrant branch gates and other such no-no's under current > maintainability and pipeline-flush avoidance rules, other times just by > flagrantly awful spaghetti code even a human would struggle to understand. > Was that merely faithfully replicating deficiencies in the input? What architecture level? What might it do with such as RISBG? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
Tom, I don't know who the vendor actually was (it wasn't done in my application area), but a few years ago we tried one of them who had an automated tool of some kind to do that conversion, and the resulting COBOL code that I was asked to peer-review was unreadable and unmaintainable. The business logic was totally scrambled, sometimes by "old-timer" tricks like non-reentrant branch gates and other such no-no's under current maintainability and pipeline-flush avoidance rules, other times just by flagrantly awful spaghetti code even a human would struggle to understand. That project was canceled, and now we do it (when actually needed) in the old-fashioned way - by hand, by a senior programmer experienced in both languages. Usually only when something breaks and management needs the business logic preserved in a more "supportable" form. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Ross Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 6:32 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Converting assembler to COBOL help Greetings mainframers! This has porobbaly been asked and answered, but are there tools or companies that can convert or help to rewrite assembler applications or just programs into COBOL? Any suggestions? Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << AKA: Captain COBOL, Tom Ross -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help
Why in the heck would you want to do that? Joe On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:32 PM Tom Ross wrote: > Greetings mainframers! > > This has porobbaly been asked and answered, but are there tools or > companies > that can convert or help to rewrite assembler applications or just programs > into COBOL? Any suggestions? > > > Cheers, > TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << > AKA: Captain COBOL, Tom Ross > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Converting assembler to COBOL help
Greetings mainframers! This has porobbaly been asked and answered, but are there tools or companies that can convert or help to rewrite assembler applications or just programs into COBOL? Any suggestions? Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << AKA: Captain COBOL, Tom Ross -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
