In your infinitesimal and lugubrious opinion. See, we Texuns cun tawk too! (Actually originally from Ohio).
Our job is to support our customers, not to decide what they should do because you have pronounced so from your MA ivory tower. No one insulted you, so why do you feel a need to insult others? State your opinion and have something to back it up, and then let the rest on the list decide what they want or need to do. The amount of time to execute an instruction is insignificant compared to time better spent reducing I/O requirements and preventing the instruction or data cache from being flushed prematurely. Ken Kenneth Meyer CA Technologies Software Architect Tel: +1 214 473 1000 [email protected] FAQSMAN on twitter > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John Gilmore > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 4:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Length question > > Kenneth Meyer's formulation > > <begin extract> > I, among many, have to support older versions of the mainframe. This > means using common instructions rather than the latest instructions. > </end extract> > > is admirably clear and succinct. Its only defect is that it is wrong. > > If instruction INST is not available on some of the machines he must > support he can write a macro definition called INST that mimics its > behavior for use on these antediluvian machines, do very much the same > thing IBM does for millicoded instructions, albeit somewhat less > elegantly. > > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
