Authors : Harshhitha Pattapuchetty; Usha Rani K R

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/ft93pujr

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25jun423

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Legacy software systems, specifically those that use COBOL, remain foundational in fields like banking, insurance, and government infrastructure. As hardware architectures evolve, optimizing legacy binaries while maintaining compatibility becomes increasingly important to harness the full potential of modern systems. However, direct refactoring of source code is often infeasible due to risk, cost, or unavailability of the original codebase. Binary optimization offers a compelling alternative that enables performance improvements at the binary level without touching the source. COBOL, one of the oldest high-level programming languages, continues to run critical workloads in sectors such as finance, government, and infrastructure. Despite its reliability, COBOL systems face growing challenges due to aging codebases, limited source code availability, and the increasing gap between legacy software and modern hardware capabilities. Recompilation is often infeasible, prompting the need for safe and practical binary-level optimization techniques. This paper presents a design-focused review of binary optimization in the context of COBOL, beginning with an overview of the language’s execution model and architectural constraints. We discuss IBM’s Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO), a production-grade tool designed to enhance the performance of COBOL binaries on modern IBM Z systems without requiring source code. ABO’s use of “smart binaries” and instruction-level metadata enables advanced validation workflows. We also survey key research contributions such as optimize-time validation (Koju et al.), hardware idiom recognition, adaptive runtime frameworks like COBRA, and formal verification tools like Alive2.

Keywords : COBOL, Legacy Systems, Binary Optimization, IBM Automatic Binary Optimizer (ABO), Smart Binary, Optimize- Time Validation, Intermediate Representation, Mainframe Modernization, Packed Decimal Arithmetic, Runtime Validation, Static Analysis, Translation Validation, Dynamic Optimization.

References :

1. T. Koju, R. Copeland, M. Kawahito and M. Ohara, ”Automatic Optimize-Time Validation for Binary Optimizers,” Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO), San Diego, CA, USA, 2020, pp. 137–148, doi: 10.1145/3368826.3377919.
2. M. Kawahito, H. Komatsu, T. Moriyama, H. Inoue and T. Nakatani, ”A New Idiom Recognition Framework for Exploiting Hardware- Assist Instructions,” Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), San Jose, CA, USA, 2006, pp. 382–393, doi: 10.1145/1168857.1168902.
3. J. Kim, W. Hsu and P. Yew, ”COBRA: An Adaptive Runtime Binary Optimization Framework for Multithreaded Applications,” Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP), Xi’an, China, 2007, pp. 25–32, doi: 10.1109/ICPP.2007.23.
4. T. Koju, R. Copeland, M. Kawahito and M. Ohara, ”Re- constructing High-Level Information for Language-Specific Binary Re-Optimization,” Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO), Barcelona, Spain, 2016, pp. 273–283, doi: 10.1145/2854038.2854057.
5. N. Lopes, J. Lee, C.-K. Hur, Z. Liu and J. Regehr, ”Alive2: Bounded Translation Validation for LLVM,” Proceedings of the ACM on Program- ming Languages (POPL), Vol. 5, 2021, pp. 1–29, doi: 10.1145/3434304.
6. J. E. Sammet, ”Brief Summary of the Early History of COBOL,” in Annals of the History of Computing, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 288-303, Oct.- Dec. 1985, doi: 10.1109/MAHC.1985.10044.
7. IBM  Corporation,  ”Migrating  to  Enterprise  COBOL V6,” IBM Documentation, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cobol-zos/6.3
8. IBM    Corporation, ”z/Architecture Principles      of       Operation,” IBM Redbooks, SA22-7832-12, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.3.0?topic=architecture- zarchitecture-principles-operation
9. S. S. Muchnick, Advanced Compiler Design and Implementation, San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.
10. V. Bala, E. Duesterwald and S. Banerjia, ”Dynamo: A Transpar- ent Dynamic Optimization System,” Proceedings of the ACM SIG- PLAN 2000 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), Vancouver, Canada, 2000, pp. 1–12, doi: 10.1145/349299.349303.
11. D. Bruening, T. Garnett and S. Amarasinghe, ”An Infrastructure for Adaptive Dynamic Optimization,” International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO), 2003, pp. 265–275, doi: 10.1109/CGO.2003.1191553.
12. K. Sen, D. Marinov and G. Agha, ”CUTE: A Concolic Unit Testing Engine for C,” Proceedings of the 10th European Software Engineering Conference, 2005, pp. 263–272, doi: 10.1145/1081706.1081750.
13. C. Boyapati, S. Khurshid and D. Marinov, ”Korat: Automated Testing Based on Java Predicates,” Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), Rome, Italy, 2002, pp. 123–133, doi: 10.1145/566172.566191.
14. J. C. King, ”Symbolic Execution and Program Testing,” Commu- nications of the ACM, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 385–394, 1976, doi: 10.1145/360248.360252.
15. LLVM Project, ”The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure.” [Online]. Avail- able: https://llvm.org/
16. M. J. Gordon and T. F. Melham, Introduction to HOL: A Theorem Proving Environment for Higher Order Logic, Cambridge University Press, 1993.