Apologies, I misremembered
Found a Functional Characteristics for the 360/50 and it's 0.5uS
Melvyn Maltz.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seymour J Metz" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ?
WTF? Yes, on some models index was more expensive than base, but I don't
know of any model where it was nearly as large as 50 microseconds.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [[email protected]] on
behalf of MELVYN MALTZ [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 5:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ?
To Charles...
EX 0, on a dynamically constructed TM...the hard way doing whatever...
had to be done
I don't want to get off topic, but TESTCB is the worst IBM macro I have ever
seen
Syntax checking...none, documentation...awful and misdescribed in the VSAM
Macro manual...I won't go on
And using an index register instead of a base register is frowned upon
(440D0014)
I doubt if it matters now, but you are right, back in 360/370 days the use
of index carried a 50uS overhead
I well remember obsessively recoding LA R5,1(R5) as LA R5,1(,R5) back in the
days
Melvyn Maltz.=
