Re: Decades of compiler technology and what do we get?

Robert AH Prins <robert@prino.org>
Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:14:12 +0000

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? robert@prino.org (Robert AH Prins) (2012-04-22)
Re: Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? robert@prino.org (Robert AH Prins) (2012-04-22)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Robert AH Prins <robert@prino.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:14:12 +0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 12-04-070
Keywords: Cobol, performance
Posted-Date: 22 Apr 2012 21:39:56 EDT

On 2012-04-22 18:57, Robert AH Prins wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:58 pm, "HeyBub"<hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> bit.listserv.ibm-main:
>
> [The conventional wisdom is that COBOL programs are all I/O bound, so
> the speed of the object code is not a big deal. There are plenty of
> other compilers that can optimize this kind of stuff. -John]


As it turns out our test compiles add an OPT(0) after all programmer
supplied options "because that takes less CPU..." My comment that this
means that production programs are never the same as the ones that
have been tested was dismissed with a "We have done this for years
without anyone ever having a problem with it."


Submitting from SDSF with altered JCL does produce rather better code,
so I stand corrected (again, I'm losing it, rapidly...)


Apologies to all, at least for the z/OS part! However, I'm not going to
retract my remarks about the PL/I for Windows compiler.


Robert
--
Robert AH Prins
robert(a)prino(d)org

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.