On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Elardus Engelbrecht < [email protected]> wrote:
> Ted MacNEIL wrote: > > >I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions? > > Good question. This is why I asked that loop question earlier today. But > I'm following this fun thread about the cache, fetch/modify by different > CPs and execution prediction. Just curious of course. > > >Optimisation of a few is not worth the effort these days. > > After my question, someone posted me off-line that if the machine only > execute ONE instruction PER second, then only, then this optimisation work > is worth the trouble. > > Groete / Greetings > Elardus Engelbrecht > Of course, IBM is trying to make this discussion moot by getting people off of using assembler at all, and implementing a code generation "back end" which will produce "better than the average HLASM programmer" code for C/C++, Java, and COBOL (COBOL code generation, pre-V5.1 at least, really stinks IMO). I don't know if IBM worries as much about FORTRAN and PL/I these days. -- Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing? Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
