In
<985915eee6984740ae93f8495c624c6c2318055...@jscpcwexmaa1.bsg.ad.adp.com>,
on 05/31/2013
at 03:40 PM, "Farley, Peter x23353" <peter.far...@broadridge.com>
said:
>The problem with recompilation is not purely technical though. ISTM
>that there is far more bureaucracy needed to monitor and guarantee
>successful completion of full regression testing at each
>recompilation than there is payback from using notionally "better"
>translators and runtimes at a given stage.
Yes, additional regression checking is expensive. However, how do you
validate a new release or service level of the compiler without it?
What do you do when you roll a new release of the compiler into
production and discover six months later that you can't compile a
module that you need to update? Sometimes pay now is less expensive
than pay later.
Now, if there is an LPAR hierarchy with the same levels of the
compilers and static libraries, no recompile is necessary. But when
you promote changes to the compilers (static libraries), a recompile
(rebind) of everything, followed by testing, is the only way to be
sure that you didn't break anything.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
