Melvyn, all Ah yes the 360/50 we ran MFT on with HASP. I thought it was blazing faster than 360/30 running TOS.
Don Higgins [email protected] www.donhiggins.org -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of MELVYN MALTZ Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 4:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ? 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.=
