Re: [Tiny-cobol-users] Proposed addition to OpenCOBOL: an object module generator

[David E. <de...@us...>]

Sorry, wrong list.


David Essex wrote:

> 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.