Regarding optimizing of code done by compilers, I find this interesting: <http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=2231&context=SS6SG3&dc=DA490&dc =DA4A10&dc=DA4A30&dc=DA420&dc=DA480&dc=DA500&dc=DA410&dc=DA4A20&dc=DA440&dc= DA460&dc=DA430&dc=DA470&dc=DA400&q1=cobpf310.pdf&uid=swg27001475&loc=en_US&c s=utf-8&lang=en>. Watch the amazing amount of wrap, or do a search for "cobpf310.pdf".
This is a paper titled "IBM Enterprise COBOL Version 3 Release 1 Performance Tuning." There is a SHARE requirement to have this updated for more recent versions of COBOL. On pages 5 and 6, there is discussion of OPTIMIZE(STD), OPTIMIZE(FULL), or NOOPTIMIZE. Quoting... Performance considerations using OPTIMIZE: - On the average, OPTIMIZE(STD) was 1% faster than NOOPTIMIZE, with a range of 12% faster to equivalent. - On the average, OPTIMIZE(FULL) was equivalent to OPTIMIZE(STD). - One RENT program calling a RENT subprogram with 500 unreferenced data items with VALUE clauses was 9% faster with OPTIMIZE(FULL) or OPT(STD) compared to NOOPT. - The same RENT program calling a RENT subprogram with 500 unreferenced data items with VALUE clauses using the IS INITIAL clause on the PROGRAM-ID statement was 90% faster with OPTIMIZE(FULL) compared to OPT(STD). Note: The two RENT program tests measured only the overhead of the CALL (i.e., the subprogram did only a GOBACK); thus, a full application that does more work in the subprograms may have different results. ...end quote I think we're back to, "It Depends." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
