In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
07/18/2005
at 07:59 AM, "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I may be able to top that.
You;d have to do do better than a performance issue. The code in
question modified an existing SMF exit to accomodate an IBM code
change by swapping two "Rx" EQU definitions instead of changing the
code: something like
R5 EQU 7
R7 EQU 5
>I may be able to top that. Somebody, who I guess started on a s/360,
The 360/85 was the first S/360 with the byte aligned operator feature.
The code that you show was necessary unless you were running on a
360/85 or 360/195. So the question is whether you are talking about
legacy code or code written when he no longer had to support S/360.
>I'm fairly sure that doing an "unaligned" LH is a lot faster
Not on a 2025, 2030, 2040, 2044, 2050, 2065, 2067, 2075, 2091 or 2095
;-)
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
