Hmm, remove the code but not the literal? That seems more trouble than it's worth and to what end?
I could probably look at the pseudo assembler listing, but that's not my strong suit. What does it hurt? Well, if I wrote a COBOL program and the compiler reported that a huge chunk of it was discarded because it would never be executed, my response would probably be "Oops, I didn't mean to do that." With COBOL 5.1, I won't know part of my program is not executing until I possibly don't get the results I expected. Right? Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 10:45 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL v5.1 Implemented? Well, I suppose it is possible that it is removing the *code* but not the literal. Does COBOL 5.1 have a "show me the pseudo-assembler listing" option? That would provide a better test IMHO. Of course, the real harm in not removing unreachable code is pretty modest IMHO. Makes your executable larger, which uses DASD, and virtual storage, and fetch time, and slightly reduces i-cache hit probability, and perhaps gets in the way of short relative jumps -- but all pretty modest effects IMHO. Or am I missing something? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
