On 13 Oct 2009 14:20:58 -0700, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown,
John) wrote:
>I'd say that, to me, it seems that IBM "likes" AIX and Linux.
>The iSeries people complain the same way that we do about IBM
>not doing much to encourage people to adopt the i. I don't know
>any AIX people, but
This new article in zJournal might be of some interest in the context of
this thread:
http://www.zjournal.com/index.cfm?section=article&aid=1231
Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
http://dovetail.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / s
On 13 Oct 2009 09:58:31 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>My meager understanding of compiling is that it is a multi-phase process
>internally. code generation is the second last phase. the last phase
>being reporting, i.e. the listing etc.
>
>One would not want to generate C but what
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:51 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to
> death was Re
On 13 Oct 2009 08:01:58 -0700, d...@higgins.net (Don Higgins) wrote:
>If you and your IBM management really believe "COBOL is the language of the
>future", it seems to me that your development and support team, needs to
>find a way to allocate some finite portion of your available resources to
My meager understanding of compiling is that it is a multi-phase process
internally. code generation is the second last phase. the last phase
being reporting, i.e. the listing etc.
One would not want to generate C but whatever the stuff is that C produces
in its parse+ portion, before it does
Tom
If you and your IBM management really believe "COBOL is the language of the
future", it seems to me that your development and support team, needs to
find a way to allocate some finite portion of your available resources to
constantly work on making your COBOL compiler more efficient using l
A COBOL compiler that runs on Linux (including Linux for System z) does
produce intermediate C code, before running it through GCC. It is not
technically considered a GCC based COBOL, though. Take a look at
OpenCOBOL, http://www.opencobol.org.
There was some work done some years ago on GCC C
eter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote:
>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
>> > Behalf Of Sam Siegel
>> > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM
>> > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>&g
me Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Sam Siegel
> > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> > Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
> Re:
> > Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit b
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Sam Siegel
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
Re:
> Does Ent.
instructions?
>BUT the resulting reduction in customer CPU utilization would
>cannibalize the additional hardware sales that would have been made when
>customer work volume increases, making the hardware side of the house
>*very* unhappy...
>
>Reducing customer CPU utilization likely loses IBM mor
IBM needs to keep optimizing the c/c++ compiler to support *nix/windows
server consolidation onto zLinux.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2009 10:37:56 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Kirk Talman
> wrote:
>
> >Why can't Cobol use the C code generator?
>
> IBM coul
On 12 Oct 2009 10:37:56 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Kirk Talman
wrote:
>Why can't Cobol use the C code generator?
IBM could write a parser to generate optimal C/C++ code from COBOL but
that would be a large investment and might not produce as good results
as the current compiler parser genera
Why can't Cobol use the C code generator?
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 10/09/2009
04:55:20 PM:
> Meanwhile, IBM spends considerable effort in optimizing its C/C++
> compilers. Customers with C and C++ applications have more alternatives
> to Big Iron.
-
Andrews
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 9:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
Re:
Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?
I'll bet I could rent some nice office space and hire a small te
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of David Andrews
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 9:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was
Re:
> Does En
To add even more topic-skew, no mention of a full blown COBOL port to
zLinux with ahem.. CICS.
JC
=> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Kirk Wolf wrote:
=>> Wrong equations :-)
=>> What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the
=>> COBOL compiler?
=>>
=>> Back in the day whe
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Kirk Wolf wrote:
> Wrong equations :-)
> What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the
> COBOL compiler?
>
> Back in the day when there was fierce PCM competition, you could add
> new instructions and then spend money in compiler exploitation as
Wrong equations :-)
What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the
COBOL compiler?
Back in the day when there was fierce PCM competition, you could add
new instructions and then spend money in compiler exploitation as a
competitive advantage. Now the business case is a little
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 02:32 -0400, Bill Klein wrote:
> I suspect that many (Possibly even most) existing IBM COBOL customers would
> like it if IBM COBOL development had "unlimited" resources for enhancements
Unlimited? No, but if IBM applied a higher percentage of gross it would
be nice.
Roundi
"Clark Morris" wrote in message
news:...
> On 8 Oct 2009 14:08:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
> It could be done
For those in IBM-MAIN who don't follow such things. Clark has had long
running "desires" of how it would like to see IBM COBOL development
prioritize things.
On 8 Oct 2009 14:08:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>---
>Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to implement
>64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit Websphere, the
>failure to imp
runs ... amazing ..concept.
today your lucky...with others... to run from one release to another
without major problems ..
From:
Rick Fochtman
To:
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date:
10/08/2009 04:07 PM
Subject:
Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent.
COBOL 4.1 generate 6
---
Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to implement
64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit Websphere, the
failure to implement USAGE BIT, the failure to implement the IBM pushed
decimal flo
Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to
implement 64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit
Websphere, the failure to implement USAGE BIT, the failure to
implement the IBM pushed decimal floating point, the failure to
implement IEEE floating point using the 2002 COB
26 matches
Mail list logo