Well, at no time have *I* suggested that the new compiler should be avoided, only that a bug should be fixed (if there is one). If this changed behavior with the optimization of a COBOL program is not a bug, then I will be enlightened by IBM's explanation and this discussion, and be in a better position to explain to the programmers in my shop how this new version of COBOL will operate. I'm not sure where you're seeing impatience and offense towards IBM, but I will agree with you that this new compiler is superior to the predecessors. I'm eager to start having the programmers use it.
Regards, Greg Shirey Ben E. Keith Company -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 5:05 AM <snip> So far, we do not appear to be dealing with defective optimizations that make a routine unusable. Instead we are dealing with situations in which further optimizations are possible. That being the case, some patience is in order. This new compiler is, on balance, much superior to its predecessors; and crotchets of this sort do not constitute a legitimate arguments for avoiding its use. Until now I avoided contributing to this thread on the assumption that IBM was well able to defend itself and did not need my herlp in doing so. This post reflects my, changed, view that some other posters have misunderstood this 'deficiency' and the nature of optimization in general. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
