Ah, the never-ending trade-off between cost of developing, debugging, and ongoing maintenance of the code by other non-specialized people (simple vs. elegant code) and the expense at execution time (how many bazillion times per second does the code generate poor locality of reference access patterns, how many pageable frames does the table occupy, how much does the LPAR cost to run, and how much will non-elegant code impact other work on the LPAR at the same time). Only the OP can populate all those variables with actual values.
Bill Fairchild ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Gilmartin" <paulgboul...@aim.com> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:41:25 AM Subject: Re: assembler On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:51:33 +0000, DASDBILL2 wrote: >Since virtual storage is now so much less expensive and so much more available >than storage [1] was 50 years ago, why not be really extravagant and use one >whole byte per store? If the byte contains 0, then the store number is not >valid, or something like that, and if the byte contains anything other than 0, >then the store number is valid. This should result in much simpler code to >access this table. > Locality of reference. >[1] In those days, there was no virtual or real storage available on IBM's >mainframes. There was only "storage". -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
