Hmm-m-m. Might an upgrade of XL C/C++ (JCL only) to the Open XLC version include a JCL-capable CLANG version? Now I really am dreaming . . .
But I'll take always-available bash and other GNU ports first, thank you very much. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Phil Smith III Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 12:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols] Charles Mills asked: >Question: what are the advantages and disadvantages of XL C/C++ 2.4.1 >W/D versus Open XL C/C++? Why might I choose to use one versus the >other? What I got from David's note is that the later two versions are more modern and thus more compliant with current C standards. The subtext is that IBM wants to stop maintaining it, figures maintaining a port of CLANG is cheaper/easier. Which isn't necessarily wrong, if it doesn't lose the traditional MVS "side" usage, as it currently does. I'm faintly optimistic that continuing the same numbering means the intent is there to re-converge them. Naïve? -- 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
