jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) (09/15/87)
Does anyone out there know of a C compiler for the IBM 43xx series running OS/MVS . Who sells it? How much? Does it support CICS, or TSO, or anything else? Any information would be greatly appreciated. ihnp4!wlbr!etn-rad!jru
sullivan@marge.math.binghamton.edu (fred sullivan) (09/15/87)
In article <280@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes: >Does anyone out there know of a C compiler for the IBM 43xx series >running OS/MVS . There is a Waterloo C which runs under VM. Probably there is an MVS version. >Who sells it? University of Waterloo >How much? Don't know. >Does it support CICS, or TSO, or anything else? Don't know. Fred Sullivan Department of Mathematical Sciences State University of New York at Binghamton Binghamton, New York 13903 Email: sullivan@marge.math.binghamton.edu
KJH%APLVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.EDU (Kenneth J. Heeres) (09/16/87)
We are using the Lattice C compiler as modified by SAS Institute. It is availa ble for both OS/MVS and VM/CMS.
daves@brspyr1.UUCP (09/16/87)
in article <280@etn-rad.UUCP>, jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) says: > > Does anyone out there know of a C compiler for the IBM 43xx series > running OS/MVS . There are several C compilers out in the mainframe world. The three that I know of are: 1) Whitesmith's / IBM C (IBM licenses and sells it, Whitesmith develops it, and sells it as well.) 2) Waterloo C (I don't know much about it, except that it's low cost, and has quick compilation; used by several universities) 3) SAS / Lattice C (This is the package we use for our product development on VM/CMS and MVS/TSO. A very good package; very robust runtime library, similar to UNIX's.) We've used both the SAS and Whitesmith's compiler in the past, but now we only use SAS. By the way, none of the compilers have a CICS interface that I know of, but with SAS, you can write assembler "glue" routines to get to the CICS routines, if you want. I think that there are some SAS C users out there who are doing that. -- |Dave Schubmehl | UUCP Map: daves@brspyr1.UUCP | |BRS | UUCP Path: seismo!rochester!steinmetz!brspyr1!daves | |Latham, NY 12110 | or: ihnp4!dartvax!brspyr1!daves | |(518) 783-1161 --------------------------------------------------------
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (09/17/87)
The Lattice C compiler is notoriously non-standard. There are C compiler for both VM/CMS and MVS from IBM that we have acquired. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. -Ron
STROBL%DBNGMD21.BITNET@wiscvm.wis (Wolfgang Strobl 49+228303223) (09/17/87)
> Does anyone out there know of a C compiler for the IBM 43xx series > running OS/MVS . We tested the Lattice C as modified by SAS Institute (Version 2.10C). We have Waterloo C (Version 1.3) and the IBM C (Release 1.0). All three compilers look like ports from VM/CMS to MVS. > Who sells it? Lattice C: SAS Institute Inc. Box 8000, Cary, NC 27511-8000 or SAS Institute GmbH, Rohrbarcher Str. 22, D-6900 Heidelberg 1, Germany Waterloo C: WATCOM Products Inc, 415 Phillip St., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3X2 IBM C: IBM > How much? Lattice C: If I remember correctly, 12.000 DM for the first year and 8.000 DM for the following years. This prices are nearly two years old. At that time the Lattice C was the only working C Compiler for MVS. I don't know the actual price. Waterloo C: 1800 $ per year (commercial) IBM C: 5000 $ One-time Charge, 313 $ monthly. > Does it support CICS, or TSO, or anything else? CICS: don't know. TSO: all three compilers produce load modules which can be run under TSO - but that does not say very much, there is nearly no special support for TSO. > > Any information would be greatly appreciated. > The MVS interface of all three compilers (of the versions we had or have) is lousy. For example: both Lattice C and Waterloo C can fopen preallocated files only, via a DDNAME. The Lattice C manual mentioned that as to be fixed in a later version. The IBM C's fopen creates unblocked files by default and the compiler uses unblocked intermediate workfiles. One of my programs which compiles in 4 minutes on a AT-03 using MSC 4.0 takes 35 minutes execution time on our 3090-150 if the machine is empty. If you write unblocked files to 3380 disks, this may use up to 30 times the space it takes with blocked files. The rename function is not implemented in all three C's. The following list of critera tries to give you an impression of my experience whith the compilers. If I put a compiler in 3. place that does not mean it's bad. It only says the other two look better to me. 1.Place 2.Place 3.Place --------------------------------------------------------------------- Language IBM Waterloo Lattice Example: IBM translates ANSI C, Lattice C has no enum and no structure assignement. Installation: IBM Waterloo Lattice Speed: Waterloo Lattice IBM All three compilers are s l o w ! If one had used Dsmet C on a fast AT before and moves to a 10 MIPS 3090, one get's really surprised. Turnaround times go up, not down. Library (# of functions) Lattice Waterloo IBM (design of stdio port) Lattice IBM Waterloo (quality of implementation) IBM Waterloo Lattice Let me explain what I mean with "design of stdio port" by giving an example. With Waterloo C you must specify the attributes of a data set in the fopen call, if they do not match the default attributes, which resemble card image with a fixed record length of 80. Otherwise one gets an open error. With Lattice C and IBM C you can specify attributes, but one is not forced to do that. Which "quality of implementation" I mean the # and severity of bugs or omissions I found. > > ihnp4!wlbr!etn-rad!jru Wolfgang Strobl, GMD Z1.BN, STROBL@DBNGMD21.BITNET PS: I want to get in contact with other people which have to maintain and use a C Compiler under MVS, in order to exchange bug reports, programs, horror stories :-) ... PPS: the above stated opinions are my own, but I am not allowed to sell them.