On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:34:01 +0000, john gilmore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The chief problem with not having "the end of one's [i-th] buffer"
>doubleword-aligned is that the beginning of the (i+1)-th and all subsequent
>buffers will not have their beginnings doubleword aligned.
>
Well, FSVO "all".
>A logical record will not then in general be doubleword aligned in its buffer,
>with the consequence that it will be unusable for locate-mode i/o operations
>if any of its fields has an internal halfword, fullword, or doubleword
>alignment requirement.
>
So, because some programmers might benefit by having logical records
doubleword aligned, should all programmers be forbidden to use a
block size not a multiple of 8? Better to allow a few slack bytes
between buffers.
But you motivated me to write a simple (no threat to RSA) factoring
program, which tells me:
496 $ factor
32760
Factors of 32760 are 2 2 2 3 3 5 7 13
32767
Factors of 32767 are 7 31 151
I suppose divisors of 32767 are only marginally useful.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
