Guys, Reading through this thread, quickly, it very obvious that certain exits must be in Assembler. So your kind of a captive audience. I am speaking of security type products. I have beem experimenting in C , not being a C heavy, it would be nice and desirable to do them in C . But sure if IBM supports ICHPWX01 in C ...
Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On Apr 13, 2012, at 2:53 PM, "McKown, John" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds like what is done by the GNU compiler people. From what I've read, all > the GNU compilers utilize the same "back end" code generator. IIRC, at one > time the non-C compilers really did a <language> to C conversion, followed by > a C compile. I don't know if I have the terminology correct, but now all the > compilers in the GCC collection emit a "parse tree"(?) and pass that to the > common back end for actual optimization and code generation. > > Now if they would just create a COBOL and PL/I compiler "front end", I would > be in 7th heaven. > > -- > 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 Edward Jaffe >> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:10 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ? >> >> On 4/13/2012 10:46 AM, David Crayford wrote: >>> On 14/04/2012 1:38 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote: >>>> On 4/12/2012 9:03 AM, David Crayford wrote: >>>>> AFAIK, the PL/X compiler shares a back-end with the other >> code optimizers, >>>>> so should produce excellent code. >>>> >>>> Not yet. >>>> >>> >>> So does that mean that the PL/X compiler produces inferior >> code to the Metal/C >>> compiler? That would be disappointing considering the >> majority of the >>> operating system is writen in PL/X! >> >> Yes. This has been one of the justifications for not having a >> new z/OS >> Architectural Level Set i.e., the existing PL/X compiler >> cannot generate code >> that takes advantage of the newer hardware features, so why >> force customers to >> upgrade unnecessarily? The compiler was given to the folks in >> Toronto a >> couple/few years ago with the intent of having it enhanced >> with the "smart" back >> end used for other IBM compilers. Given that z/OS V2.1 will >> require z9 >> processors there is even more pressure on Toronto to deliver >> this much needed >> "plumbing" enhancement. >> >> -- >> Edward E Jaffe >> Phoenix Software International, Inc >> 831 Parkview Drive North >> El Segundo, CA 90245 >> 310-338-0400 x318 >> [email protected] >> http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
