hi Steve, Sorry to hear that COBOL 6.2 compiles using OPT(0) are taking >10x CPU of the same compile with 4.2. This is not the norm. Could you please open a support case with IBM so the issue can be investigated? From the COBOL support page (link below), you can click "Open a case" in the top right.
https://www.ibm.com/mysupport/s/topic/0TO0z0000006v5OGAQ/cobol?language=en_US&productId=01t0z000007g71VAAQ Thank you! Linda Chui Enterprise Products & Compilers IBM Canada Lab On Wed, 20 May 2020 15:07:39 -0700, ste...@copper.net <ste...@copper.net> wrote: >We setup for OPT(1) because IBM said that was the thing to do initially. > >We’ve only recently been told to go OPT(2). > >We’ve also run into an interesting issue of COBOL 6.2 compiles using OPT(0) >taking > 10x CPU of same compile with 4.2. > >I don’t recall being told that we would see that level of CPU burn for >planning for capacity for migrating to 6.2. > >Regards >Steve Thomoson > >--- frank.swarbr...@outlook.com wrote: > >From: Frank Swarbrick <frank.swarbr...@outlook.com> >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] What crashing COBOL systems reveal about applications >maintenance -- GCN >Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 21:28:33 +0000 > >We use OPT(1). Probably for no good reason. (And it was my decision, meaning >its easy enough to change!) > >________________________________ >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of >Tom Ross <tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com> >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:19 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> >Subject: Re: What crashing COBOL systems reveal about applications maintenance >-- GCN > >>Suppose that they took a group of programmers and got the production online= >> programs to all compile with COBOL 6.2 and OPT(1). Would they see a signif= >>icant reduction in MSUs? Assuming they are running on z14s minimally? > >I sure hope no one is using OPT(1) with 3rd generation COBOL! IBM expects all >users >to compile with OPT(2) for production performance. I am honestly not sure why >we >shipped OPT(1). Users should use OPT(0) if they want more straight-forward >debugging >(no optimizations) and then after unit test compile with OPT(2) for >performance, and >and never use OPT(1). Alternatively, they could compile with OPT(2) for >debugging and >get used to odd things like statements getting moved or deleted while >debugging. > >Cheers, >TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
