BAL to 486 
Author Message
 BAL to 486

I'm just putting some finishing touches to a program that converts 370
Assembler to 486 code.  At the moment, it uses Borland C for Win32 and
OS/2.

I could make it so that the converted assembler could be called from
PL/I so that people with BAL code could get it running on Windows or
OS/2.

Is it worth while doing?  Would anyone use it?

Cheers,

Clem

--

  ,-._|\  Clement V. Clarke - Author Jol, EASYJCL, EASYPANEL, OSCAR,
370TO486

http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~oscarptyltd
 \_,--.x/ P.O. Box 475, Toorak, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, 3142.
       v  Tel (61)-3-9818-8351, Fax (61)-3-9819-2848.



Mon, 28 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 BAL to 486

Quote:

> I'm just putting some finishing touches to a program that converts 370
> Assembler to 486 code.  At the moment, it uses Borland C for Win32 and
> OS/2.

> I could make it so that the converted assembler could be called from
> PL/I so that people with BAL code could get it running on Windows or
> OS/2.

> Is it worth while doing?  Would anyone use it?

Not really PL/I related, but maybe worth discussing.
Sound's like a interesting project, but what's the point?
Most stuff written in BAL is non-portable by definition (else it would
be written in an HLL).  What kinds to S/370 BAL programs would be usable
on a 486 without major rewriting?


Mon, 28 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 BAL to 486

Quote:

> Most stuff written in BAL is non-portable by definition (else it would
> be written in an HLL).  What kinds to S/370 BAL programs would be usable
> on a 486 without major rewriting?

(1) Data manipulation subprograms that do intensive bit-flipping
without any I/O or OS interfaces.

(2) Programs that can treat the same storage as several different
data types, which we would have written in C if we had a
compiler.

(3) The simple conversion and report programs that the old
dinosaurs in my shop write in assembler because their PL/I
skills are "too rusty" and if they're going to study any new
language, they want it to be VB or Java.

--
Allan Beatty
I don't think I'd better put my work address on this, because
I'm certainly not speaking for them!



Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 BAL to 486
Point taken :-)
Quote:


> > Most stuff written in BAL is non-portable by definition (else it would
> > be written in an HLL).  What kinds to S/370 BAL programs would be usable
> > on a 486 without major rewriting?

> (1) Data manipulation subprograms that do intensive bit-flipping
> without any I/O or OS interfaces.

> (2) Programs that can treat the same storage as several different
> data types, which we would have written in C if we had a
> compiler.

> (3) The simple conversion and report programs that the old
> dinosaurs in my shop write in assembler because their PL/I
> skills are "too rusty" and if they're going to study any new
> language, they want it to be VB or Java.

> --
> Allan Beatty
> I don't think I'd better put my work address on this, because
> I'm certainly not speaking for them!



Fri, 01 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 BAL to 486
I know this is a little off-topic (i.e. not applicable to BAL-to-486), but
the new VA PL/I compilers provide language features that address 1 and 2
from your list.
For 1) there are all the iand, ior, inot, raise2, isll, isigned and related
BIFs, which will work on 1, 2, 4 or 8 byte integral types.
For 2) there are the new CAST(: :) and RESPEC (: :) type BIFs (=> CSD#5), as
well as the older BINVALUE and PTRVALUE BIFs.


Quote:
> Point taken :-)



> > > Most stuff written in BAL is non-portable by definition (else it would
> > > be written in an HLL).  What kinds to S/370 BAL programs would be
usable
> > > on a 486 without major rewriting?

> > (1) Data manipulation subprograms that do intensive bit-flipping
> > without any I/O or OS interfaces.

> > (2) Programs that can treat the same storage as several different
> > data types, which we would have written in C if we had a
> > compiler.

> > (3) The simple conversion and report programs that the old
> > dinosaurs in my shop write in assembler because their PL/I
> > skills are "too rusty" and if they're going to study any new
> > language, they want it to be VB or Java.

> > --
> > Allan Beatty
> > I don't think I'd better put my work address on this, because
> > I'm certainly not speaking for them!



Sat, 02 Nov 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 5 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Intel 486 vs AMD 486

2. seek advice on mac vs 486 for apl

3. Incompatability with 386/486 computers

4. Incompatiblity with 386/486 computers

5. 486 DX2 66

6. HELP: FP Calculations clobbered by a pgm's local interrupt handler on PENTIUM, 486

7. Digitalk Smalltalk/V 286 on 386-486-PII?

8. CANNOT Smalltalk V286 on 486???

9. App won't run on 486

10. 486 assembly question

11. pForth 486 assembler

12. Forth for bare 386/486?

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software