Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:26:05 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable john.m.morris@navy.mil (Morris, John M CIV NSWCDD, Q34) (2012-03-06)
Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-03-06)
Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2012-03-06)
Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable hokienerd@gmail.com (HOKIENERD) (2012-03-12)
Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2012-03-13)
Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-03-14)
Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable hokienerd@gmail.com (HOKIENERD) (2012-03-26)
Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2012-03-26)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:26:05 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
References: 12-03-007 12-03-010 12-03-028 12-03-031
Keywords: code, debug
Posted-Date: 14 Mar 2012 22:11:21 EDT

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.theworld.com> wrote:
> HOKIENERD <hokienerd@gmail.com> writes:


>> It absolutely is the line number. (Thanks for the tip.)


> You're welcome.


>>... I hope to get to the assembly code before too long.
>> I sure wish I could keep the check, but lose the line number!


> Why?


All the OS/360 compilers I remember had an option to turn on or
off keeping the statement numbers. When memory was small, it might
have made a difference.


In the case of PL/I on the 360/91, though, when statement numbering
was on the compiler generated BR 0 instructions between each statement,
which flushes the 360/91 (and any other out-of-order processor) pipeline
such that the number would be right. That was the default on the
systems I used, too.


-- glen

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.