Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From: compilers@is-not-my.name
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: IBM mainframe compilers produce object code or invoke assembler?
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:19:21 -0000
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 12
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <11-04-040@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com
X-Trace: gal.iecc.com 1303940686 6116 64.57.183.58 (27 Apr 2011 21:44:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:44:46 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords: assembler, question, comment
Posted-Date: 27 Apr 2011 17:44:46 EDT
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.compilers:107

Does anyone happen to know if the traditional IBM language products like
COBOL, PL/I, FORTRAN etc. invoke the assembler internally to produce object
code, or if they produce object code directly? If they produce object code
directly, what is the reason that approach was chosen instead of invoking
the assembler? What are the benefits and disadvantages of the possible
approaches? It seems to me a little risky to generate object code since
presumably the assembler will always be updated as part of the base OS
deliverable but then again maybe that's also a moving target to be avoided.
[They produce code directly.  Unix compilers are pretty much the only ones
that run through the assembler, and that's because the PDP-11 Unix system
had an assembler so fast that it wasn't much slower than generating the
object files directly. -John]