|Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? email@example.com (Robert AH Prins) (2012-04-22)|
|Re: Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert AH Prins) (2012-04-22)|
|From:||Robert AH Prins <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:14:12 +0000|
|Posted-Date:||22 Apr 2012 21:39:56 EDT|
On 2012-04-22 18:57, Robert AH Prins wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:58 pm, "HeyBub"<hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> [The conventional wisdom is that COBOL programs are all I/O bound, so
> the speed of the object code is not a big deal. There are plenty of
> other compilers that can optimize this kind of stuff. -John]
As it turns out our test compiles add an OPT(0) after all programmer
supplied options "because that takes less CPU..." My comment that this
means that production programs are never the same as the ones that
have been tested was dismissed with a "We have done this for years
without anyone ever having a problem with it."
Submitting from SDSF with altered JCL does produce rather better code,
so I stand corrected (again, I'm losing it, rapidly...)
Apologies to all, at least for the z/OS part! However, I'm not going to
retract my remarks about the PL/I for Windows compiler.
Robert AH Prins
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.