RE: Re: Cobol compiler date

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc
> Sent: 22 April 2010 19:13
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [turnkey-mvs] Re: Cobol compiler date
> 
> 
> On 22 April 2010 13:35, Rick Fochtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > But IFOXxx was never part of OS/360.
> > It appeared with the first release of MVS.
> 
> First release of SVS and VS1, I believe. And VM/370.
> 
> > The OS/360 Assembler F was named IEUASMxx. If you can find IEV90xx, 
> > you'll have a version of Assembler H that usually worked 
> with OS/360 
> > code and was MUCH faster than IEUASM for system generation, 
> expecially 
> > the Stage 1.
> 
> Indeed. But all versions of Assembler H were IBM Program Products.
> 
> > Assembler G, from Waterloo was also a conciderable improvement over 
> > IEUASM (Assembler
> > F) and ASMG is available from the CBTTAPE site.
> 
> It's not clear if ASMG is any faster than Assembler XF 
> (IFOX00). I'd love to know the politics behind IFOX; it 
> appears to have been a re-implementation from scratch of 
> IEUASM, to the identical specs, but with the minor additional 
> requirement that it be reentrant. Why IBM would even think of 
> doing such a thing, when Assembler H already existed, and was 
> much more capable and much faster, I can't imagine.
> 

Was re-enterance something to do with the way its run on VM? 

Whilst I havn't tried IEUASM, I did try ASMG with some of the stuff from GCC
and it wasn't very happy so I went back to IFOX.


> Tony H.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>