Re: Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers

"Alan Fargusson" <falan@inreach.com>
25 Jan 1998 12:25:33 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers sazal@aol.com (1998-01-24)
Re: Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers falan@inreach.com (Alan Fargusson) (1998-01-25)
Re: Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers corbett@lupa.Eng.Sun.COM (1998-01-25)
Re: Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers hrubin@stat.purdue.edu (1998-01-26)
Re: Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers scott@basis.com (1998-01-30)
Re: Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers reid@micro.ti.com (Reid Tatge) (1998-01-30)
Re: Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers tgl@netcom.com (Tom Lane) (1998-02-01)
Re: Use of unaligned load/stores by compilers albaugh@agames.com (1998-02-01)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Alan Fargusson" <falan@inreach.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 25 Jan 1998 12:25:33 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 98-01-099
Keywords: architecture, Cobol

As far as I know all COBOL compilers do not align data unless it is
specified. I think that this may be specified in the standard. Usually
data in COBOL is decimal, but can be binary. Not that this really matters.


The moderator said:
> [Any architecture can live without unaligned loads and stores. The
> IBM 360 didn't have them. (The 370 added them for reasons I don't
> totally grasp.) Most RISC chips don't have them.
[My recollection, since it's been a while since I wrote any Cobol, is that
Cobol lets you overlay picture data, which is characters. You can tell it
to store it in binary (COMPUTATIONAL) but I believe that compilers can
weasel around and stick the binary version somewhere else. -John]




--


Post a followup to this message

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