We use OPT(1). Probably for no good reason. (And it was my decision, meaning its easy enough to change!)
________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Tom Ross <tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> Subject: Re: What crashing COBOL systems reveal about applications maintenance -- GCN >Suppose that they took a group of programmers and got the production online= > programs to all compile with COBOL 6.2 and OPT(1). Would they see a signif= >icant reduction in MSUs? Assuming they are running on z14s minimally? I sure hope no one is using OPT(1) with 3rd generation COBOL! IBM expects all users to compile with OPT(2) for production performance. I am honestly not sure why we shipped OPT(1). Users should use OPT(0) if they want more straight-forward debugging (no optimizations) and then after unit test compile with OPT(2) for performance, and and never use OPT(1). Alternatively, they could compile with OPT(2) for debugging and get used to odd things like statements getting moved or deleted while debugging. Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
