You pose a question which I cannot answer. I would point out that my solution may be the most compact in terms of total memory utilization.
Is it the fastest when run on current hardware? That may be impossible to determine. Even with millicode involvement, the compactness of the code will ensure that everything is cached, so that the resultant execution time "may" equal or even "better" the non-millicode solutions which make use of iterative loops. John P. Baker -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Art Celestini Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Mainframe Assembler Coding Contest What is the goal of this "contest?" Instruction count or ultimate speed on current, real hardware? Both of these solutions use TRanslate, which sends you into millicode (generally, a big ouch when it comes to performance). UNPK, as used in another, may do the same, at least on certain microprocessors. ================================================== Art Celestini Celestini Development Services Phone: 201-670-1674 Wyckoff, NJ ============= http://celestini.com ============= Mail sent to the "From" address used in this post will be rejected by our server. Please send off- list email to: ibmmain<at-sign>celestini<dot>com. ================================================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
