essage-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
> Matt Hogstrom
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 1:38 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
>
> ..snip..
>
cussion List On Behalf Of
> David Crayford
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 5:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
>
>> On 11 May 2023, at 6:25 am, Frank Swarbrick
>> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone here ev
Matt Hogstrom
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 1:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
..snip..
What would be awesome is a new Linux System Services (LSS) š
--
For IBM-MAIN subs
Is it bad because it's slow, or some other reason(s)?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
David Crayford
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 5:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
> On 11 May 2023,
> On 11 May 2023, at 12:23 am, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
> Peter Farley wrote:
>> Well, if Open XL C/C++ is the "wave of the future" then IBM had better
>> plan to also buy and integrate all of Rocket's GNU ports (especially
>> bash) because I for one can NOT work in that @#$%!^ POSIX "sh" they
>>
IBM announced their intentions on the LLVM several years ago. Itās a win/win as
they can do more with less. There is a huge community of Clang/LLVM committers
who are top notch engineers.
The announcement had the following sentence which may elude to future plans to
support data sets.
https:/
All of those tools have already been ported and are either open source or
commercially supported by Rocket. FWIW, Iāve been using a termino data base
that supports xterm-256color for maybe a decade. Itās simple just by
downloading the directory from Linux. IBM have made it easier with their
ncu
t; Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
>
> Current versions of, e.g., bash, go, ooRexx, perl, python, ruby, rust, x11.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
> From: IBM Ma
Has anyone here ever used X11 under z/OS?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 12:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
Current versions of, e.g., bash, go
Charles Mills asked:
>Got that, I think. What I was trying to ask is what is the difference
>between them? Why would I choose one of those over the other?
? Because you need the more modern features (2.4.1) or you need/want to do your
work from the MVS side (2.4)?
I feel like I'm missing your po
> the later two versions are more modern and thus more compliant with current C
> standards
Got that, I think. What I was trying to ask is what is the difference between
them? Why would I choose one of those over the other?
Charles
On Wed, 10 May 2023 12:50:20 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>C
...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 12:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
"Install bash" is not a possibility in some shops. IBM needs to make bash
available (and supported) in ALL delivered/updated z/OS systems, as
+11 on all points.
Now you're talking!! I'll take LSS too please.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Matt Hogstrom
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 1:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak sym
Iād include languages like:
python
node
go
as well as git
and update terminfo to support more modern terminal types than vt100 ā¦
xterm-256color anyone ?
Right now USS is a scavenger hunt to make it remotely useable by find items one
at a time.
What would be awesome is a new Linux System Se
ssion List On Behalf Of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 12:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
Charles Mills asked:
>Question: what are the advantages and disadvantages of XL C/C++ 2.4.1
>W/D versus Open XL C/C++? Why might
Charles Mills asked:
>Question: what are the advantages and disadvantages of XL C/C++ 2.4.1
>W/D versus Open XL C/C++? Why might I choose to use one versus the
>other?
What I got from DavidĀs note is that the later two versions are more modern and
thus more compliant with current C standards.
Th
Peter Farley wrote:
>"Install bash" is not a possibility in some shops. IBM needs to make
>bash available (and supported) in ALL delivered/updated z/OS systems,
>as a standard part of z/OS, so that there is no choice in the matter.
>Ditto for all the other necessary GNU utilities of course.
Of cou
y USD$0.02.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 12:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
Peter Farley wrote:
>Well, if Open XL C/C++ is the "
Peter Farley wrote:
>Well, if Open XL C/C++ is the "wave of the future" then IBM had better
>plan to also buy and integrate all of Rocket's GNU ports (especially
>bash) because I for one can NOT work in that @#$%!^ POSIX "sh" they
>supply at the moment. It is a hideous shell to try to work in. It d
On Behalf Of
David Crayford
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
2.4.1 is more than a slight update, itās a completely different front-end. To
make it more confusing there are three C/C++ compiler products on
Thank you, @David. I have been to the disclosure sessions and this is clearer
than anything I have heard from IBM.
Question: what are the advantages and disadvantages of XL C/C++ 2.4.1 W/D
versus Open XL C/C++? Why might I choose to use one versus the other?
Thanks,
Charles
On Wed, 10 May 2023
David Crayford wrote, in part:
>2.4.1 is more than a slight update, it's a completely different
>front-end. To make it more confusing there are three C/C++ compiler
>products on z/OS.
Yes, that is hella confusing. With similar names AND versions, at least for two
of them. And it sounds you'
2.4.1 is more than a slight update, itās a completely different front-end. To
make it more confusing there are three C/C++ compiler products on z/OS.
XL C/C++ is the legacy compiler which supports 31/64-bit and has CICS
translation built it. It can run as a batch program. IBM have made no
state
Yeah, I've been just as confused as anyone. It doesn't make much sense to
have an entirely new compiler ("Open XL C/C++") with a name so subtly
different from the old one ("XL C/C++"). It's typical of IBM to add &
remove fashionable buzzwords to/from product names with no significance.
So this is
David Crayford wrote:
>They're different products. I can't see a convergence as that would be
>a high impact change to customers and would require Metal/C spinning
>off. It's far more likely that XL 2.4.1 and Open XL C/C++ will
>converge.
Huh, something gave me the impression that 2.4.1 was
Theyāre different products. I canāt see a convergence as that would be a high
impact change to customers and would require Metal/C spinning off. Itās far
more likely that XL 2.4.1 and Open XL C/C++ will converge.
> On 9 May 2023, at 5:18 am, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
> Linda,
>
>
>
> How do t
Linda,
How do the two relate? Will the 2.4.1 USS-only version become the main path? Or
will they converge?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the me
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC version? [was: RE: XLC - Weak symbols]
On Mon, 8 May 2023 17:58:19 +, Farley, Peter
wrote:
>I am more than a bit confused. I know I saw an announcement that XLC 2.4.1
>was available for download, but exactly which version is supplied in the z/OS
&g
On Mon, 8 May 2023 17:58:19 +, Farley, Peter
wrote:
>I am more than a bit confused. I know I saw an announcement that XLC 2.4.1
>was available for download, but exactly which version is supplied in the z/OS
>PDSE's in an existing z/OS 2.4 environment? Is this new XLC version available
>
Peter Farley asked some excellent questions that I'd also like to understand
the answers to! I'm mostly replying to say "I don't know so don't expect
answers from ME, alas".
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 11:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC - Weak symbols
Neale Ferguson wrote, in part:
>There's no #pragma weak in SC14-7308-40. What manual were you
>referenci
Neale Ferguson wrote, in part:
>There's no #pragma weak in SC14-7308-40. What manual were you
>referencing? I am on V2.4.
SC31-5801-00, "Compiler Reference for XL C/C++ V2.4.1 for z/OS V2.4". Note the
2.4.1. The compiler seems to have two versions, traditional (pre-2.4.1) and
"Open" (2.4.1 and p
> Could you use __asm() to generate a WXTRN statement?
XLC doesn't allow it:
SMAQ203E Unsupported external symbol type:
> Which XL C? Looking at the compiler ref for 2.4.1, it includes
> #pragma weak (C only)
There's no #pragma weak in SC14-7308-40. What manual were you referencing? I am
on V2
Neale Ferguson write, in part:
>Is it possible to declare a "weak" symbol with XLC?
Which XL C? Looking at the compiler ref for 2.4.1, it includes
#pragma weak (C only)
but that doesn't mean you're using that version.
--
For IB
You are, of course, right but using LET just means you should pay attention to
your binder listings!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Tony Harminc
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 5:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XLC - Weak symbols
On Fri
Of Neale Ferguson
> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 2:53 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: XLC - Weak symbols
>
> Is it possible to declare a āweakā symbol with XLC? i.e. Using GNU C I can
> either
>
> #pragma weak
> extern void * ;
> extern void * __a
On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 09:53, Neale Ferguson wrote:
> Is it possible to declare a āweakā symbol with XLC? i.e. Using GNU C I can
> either
>
> #pragma weak
> extern void * ;
> extern void * __attribute__((weak));
>
> But neither of these forms are accepted by XLC and I canāt see anyth
riday, May 5, 2023 2:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: XLC - Weak symbols
Is it possible to declare a āweakā symbol with XLC? i.e. Using GNU C I can
either
#pragma weak
extern void * ;
extern void * __attribute__((weak));
But neither of these forms are accepted by XLC
Is it possible to declare a āweakā symbol with XLC? i.e. Using GNU C I can
either
#pragma weak
extern void * ;
extern void * __attribute__((weak));
But neither of these forms are accepted by XLC and I canāt see anything in the
language reference.
I want to define a symbol that ma
39 matches
Mail list logo
