From: David E. <de...@us...> - 2009-05-26 21:53:20
|
Jeff Chimene wrote: > ... > That's certainly the approach I'd take if I > was starting from scratch. Well, actually NOT from scratch. You have a scanner/parser, run-time, syntax tree. I would say about 40-50% complete. Over optimistic ? Maybe. In any case I think it can be done, with the proper sponsor, financing. > The biggest hurdle I see is official incorporation into GCC. > Perhaps that's not as big a hurdle as it seems. Not likely to happen any time soon. But then again, other compilers use the GCC back-end. Some, such as GCC-Pascal, eventually became part of GCC (FSF supported projects). > On the debugging side, here is another possible approach. It's > basically the one that's appeared in various guises in this thread: > http://www.mono-project.com/Debugging > > Ignoring the JIT stuff, it would seem that cobc is well on the way to > supporting the necesary call-backs as demonstrated by those Python > data dump routines. > > Given the wealth of scripting languages supported by OC, it's really a > matter of designing and implementing useful COBRTL routines for them > to call. > > COBOL_OC_DUMP is certainly useful. Which ever approach chosen, you still have to find a way to pass debugging information (COBOL->C->binary-object). No small task, I don't think. Perhaps the simplest possible approach is to add 'READY/RESET TRACE' COBOL extension. In combination with 'DISPLAY', it is a good tool for debugging classic type COBOL programs. Cheers. |