Re: PL/I is a viable language

["Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>]

"Richard Shetron" <multics@neroon.user.acm.cs.rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:b3h4na$nro$1@newsfeeds.rpi.edu...
(snip)
> >
> >At the cost of slowing the 91 down to a 75.  It meant issuing the
> >          BCR   15,0
> >(flush pipeline) instruction.
> >
> >By the way, all this also applied to the 360/95, 360/195, and 370/195.
>
> This was not a PL/1 problem, but a problem with the underlaying
> hardware.  These were early pipelined machines where an error in
> the pipeline wasn't readily tracked back to actually offending
> instruction.  If the hardware can't report the correct program
> counter for errors, the software can't do more then guess.

Well, they were a problem for PL/I because PL/I tried.  Other languages gave
up and let the system handle it.

There is an error message in PL/I (F) that changes from ERROR AT to ERROR
NEAR when the M91 option is on.   I believe the BCR 15,0 are only added if
STMT option is on, so that statement numbers are reported in messages.

-- glen