I would adore that! We are a 95%+ COBOL shop, with EasyTrieve next and very little HLASM. So a really good optimizer would help reduce our MSU usage. Which would reduce our software bill. And might even allow us to decrease our Group Capacity limit, which would also help reduce our software bill. Which would help me keep my job because MS Windows is the beloved of our current IT management. Not as much as the previous management team, who would walk around chanting "Windows is BETTER! FASTER! CHEAPER! than anything else on the market!!"
-- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * [email protected] * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Crayford > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ? > > On 13/04/2012 12:45 AM, McKown, John wrote: > > Now that you mention it, I remember that the C/C++ compiler > has a architecture option to control the instructions > generated. I should have known that the PL/X compiler would > too. I didn't know that they both share the same back-end. I > wish that the COBOL compiler did. I am constantly amazed at > the amount of code generate by a simpe: > > Also at Share I heard that COBOL will indeed share the same > back-end and > have all the nice optimizations in future releases of z/OS. They said > that they are going to share the Java optimizer technology, which > apparently is best-of-breed. > > > > ADD +1 TO WS-INTEGER. > > > > when WS-INTEGER is defined as PIC S9(9) BINARY or NATIVE. > COBOL seems to have an inordinate love for PACKED-DECIMAL. > Someone once said it was due to ANSI standards compliance. > Might be worth it, in CPU saved, to license the C compiler > and port the OpenCOBOL > > > > Unless I somehow have the wrong compile parameters. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
