> I would have thought the reducing CPU workload would be a downside for IBM.
One might think that. The reality is that cycle times are not getting any faster. A z14 does not execute z10 machine instructions significantly (any?) faster than a z10. One way to get customers to buy a new box -- VERY important to IBM -- is to promise that their programs will run faster. That only happens if the compiler exploits the new instructions. There are "business problems" that a z14 can solve faster than a z10, given compiler support of new instructions. This has been a HUGE area of emphasis of late for the COBOL compiler team. Less so I think for C/C++, but still an emphasis. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Perryman Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 5:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM I love the structured programming macro's (SPM). They make the code so much more readable, logical and maintainable. My only suggestion would be logical indentation (> and < in place of the label where >>> represents 3 indents). As for C optimization, do you think IBM changes it as new instructions are implemented? I would have thought the reducing CPU workload would be a downside for IBM.
