Answers in the order of your questions: In most cases, yes, but the COBOL implementation chosen was MUCH worse than the original, far less readable or maintainable, and in many cases unnecessarily more complicated.
The converted assembler code was decades old, all pre-2000, so ESA at best, and most probably at XA level or earlier. Nothing of the "newer" instruction sets (FSVO "new") was present in any of the converted assembler source that I was asked to review. In all the cases that I reviewed, the code being converted could have run on the earliest 370 hardware and in some cases on 360 hardware. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 7:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Converting assembler to COBOL help On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 22:51:38 +0000, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > > ... The business logic was totally scrambled, sometimes by "old-timer" > tricks like non-reentrant branch gates and other such no-no's under current > maintainability and pipeline-flush avoidance rules, other times just by > flagrantly awful spaghetti code even a human would struggle to understand. > Was that merely faithfully replicating deficiencies in the input? What architecture level? What might it do with such as RISBG? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
