Haha, I think there were GCC projects for both COBOL and PL/I, but both are stagnate (and probably incomplete). One can still dream, though! Frank
>________________________________ > From: "McKown, John" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 12:53 PM >Subject: Re: Modernizing the BCP code ? > >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
