|Subject:||Re: [open-cobol-list] Proposed addition to OpenCOBOL: an object module generator|
|Date:||Mon, 25 May 2009 15:04:20 -0400|
Ok, I think I understand…
So if the hardware was say an IBM 370, the code would be something like:
MAIN DS 0A
PERFORMA DS 0A
. . .
Plus much much more detail.
Then your “inner interpreter” would basically trip thru the code calling routines and passing parameters as required for things like MOVE, COMPUTE, CALL, READ/WRITE etc…
Do I have it right?
From: Jeff Chimene [mailto:address@hidden
The module format COFF vs ELF is a minor issue compared to which machine
instruction set would be used.
From: Jeff Chimene [mailto:address@hidden]
Sent: May 25, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] Proposed addition to OpenCOBOL: an
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:15 AM,
Just my 2 cents, but GNU C does generate object modules on the
Agreed. One of the proposal's goals is to generate object files that
represent compiled COBOL code as opposed to compiled C code.
If OpenCOBOL generated the object module directly then it needs to
the many different hardware platforms, Intel x86,
The object module format would be COFF. That /should/ be portable
across those systems.
GNU C does have some internal features which seem to allow GOTO and
GOTO to be implemented.
Agreed. However, I don't suggest transforming the current C code into
threaded C code. I am suggesting using the theaded model in object
files. The run-time system uses the GNU C syntax for indirect jumps to
follow the thread.
Roger While would know better than I.
I waiting for feedback from him on this proposal.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|