Thanks for sending this out. We will be looking at ABO soon. I'll be very interested to see your ABO results.
Sam On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson <jesse1.robin...@sce.com> wrote: > An update for anyone who cares. My motivation was to get a preview of how > real application programs might benefit from ABO. As an electric utility, > we have millions of customers and millions of account records. We don't do > elaborate calculations for most customers. Think what it might take to > produce your monthly bill. Many factors are included, but neither > astronomical nor particle physics gets dragged in to determine how much > juice you burned and what you're on the hook for. I beefed up my program a > bit to add more arithmetic so that each O/P record now involves addition, > multiplication, division, and square root (just for fun). And a lot of > records. > > I also took David Jousma's prime number program (thanks!) to use as a > second test case. > > Running bare metal, David's program uses about 1/3 second of CPU time on a > z12. Mine takes a little over half a minute. How these results compare with > real-life work is still a guess, but the application folks are totally > saturated with another project right now. For me it's either try something > or do nothing. ABO results are pending. > > P.S. my COBOL is now 1000% better than it was a week ago! > > . > . > . > J.O.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 323-715-0595 Mobile > 626-302-7535 Office > robin...@sce.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Bill Woodger > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 1:04 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: (External):COBOL Rookie Problem > > I know what you're saying, and would normally agree where "incremental" > performance benefits were expected - knocking up a couple of test programs > may not reflect what would normally occur. > > However, this is far from incremental. V4 generates "ESA" machine-code. > ABO can do ARCH 10 or 11. In the example, DFP (if used by ABO) is going to > provide substantial performance improvements on arithmetic with > zoned-decimal. There is still improved performance with packed-decimal. > Leads to the idea that all decimal arithmetic will improve. > > I few verification programs before tossing it at real programs seems to me > a good idea, in this type of case. If something doesn't work as expected, > it can be investigated in isolation, without having to untie it from other > stuff, or, more likely, miss it altogether. > > On Friday, 1 April 2016 08:49:21 UTC+1, Andrew Rowley wrote: > > On 01/04/2016 06:26 PM, Bill Woodger wrote: > > > Andrew, I don't think it would be difficult at all. Especially for > ARCH 11, there's some substantial differences in that example of what code > would be possible (with V5 or V6), so it will be interesting to see if the > ABO takes full advantage. > > > > I'm not doubting that there would be benefits, just whether you could > > quantify them from a test program. It's hard to predict whether the > > benefits would be more, less or the same. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
