I was under the impression that newer releases of a compiler might smarten up inefficient code, such as moving assignments that are unchanging out of loops, or opening out loops, for example. None of this should affect a program flow detrimentally or produce a bug.
We're currently moving from COBOL 4.2 to version 6 (.1). Along the way I'm discovering lots of undesirable things that were done years ago when Endevor was installed and the internal staff took no interest in the process. Today I found hard coded references to COBOL versions, CICS SDFHLOAD, MAC etc. I assured the support guy that if the current load modules are working, it's nothing to worry about. However, it would be wise to recompile with all the pieces as current as possible, such as DB2 precompile components, CICS and COBOL etc. Of course, lots of testing will be needed after this recompile. On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 8:57 AM Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > I did indeed misunderstand what you meant by "implemented." I interpreted > that as meaning "rolled out into production" but you meant "recompiled." > > Absolutely I would NOT test under 6.2 and then release compile under 6.3. > Yeah, it should work, but I would not do it. > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:56 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Migrating to new compiler release > > You are misunderstanding. My concern, and I admit its a small one, is > about > those programs that were tested prior to the version upgrade but > implemented > after the version upgrade. Meaning they were tested having been compiled > with V6.2, but compiled for implementation using V6.3. It's a short window > where that would happen, so probably not worth fretting about. > > ________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf > of > Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:52 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> > Subject: Re: Migrating to new compiler release > > I think we are getting into "how many compiler developers can dance on the > head of a pin?" territory here. I stand by my original answer: > > - Yes, be prudent. There are old sysprogs and there are bold sysprogs but > there are no old, bold sysprogs. > - I would be surprised if there were any reasons why having 6.3 installed > would affect how 6.2-compiled programs would run. I would be really > surprised if such reasons existed and they could not be quickly fixed by > APAR and PTF. > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:58 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Migrating to new compiler release > > I disagree with that. A new version may simply be new features, none > affecting any features the old version supported. > > ________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf > of > Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:09 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> > Subject: Re: Migrating to new compiler release > > > My question has to do with the (probably slight) possibility that the > code > generated by one compiler would be different, for the same statement, for > another. > > It certainly would. If the code generated for every statement was the same > for both compilers, then there would be no difference between the two. > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 11:37 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Migrating to new compiler release > > I understand that the runtime is part of LE, and is generally shared > between > versions (at least V5 and V6 seem to share the same runtime for many/most > functions). Conceivably it's still possible that the code generated by a > certain version of a compiler may have defects. Probably less likely if > the > code is in a pre-existing feature. > > My question has to do with the (probably slight) possibility that the code > generated by one compiler would be different, for the same statement, for > another. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
