As Peter seems to imply, ESPIE interrupts are apparently noticeably lower overhead than ESTAE interrupts. If data or addressing exceptions were expected I definitely *would* use ESPIE. I would save ESTAE for unexpected (well, expected unexpected) conditions. My opinion: no benchmarks, no source code.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gord Tomlin Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 12:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks) On 2020-04-02 14:14, Charles Mills wrote: > I had the same observation. Sending every condition through the same handler > was advantageous for me. Same here. > > You would want to keep the SPIE if program checks were expected: perhaps a > report generator where you anticipated that users might declare fields to be > packed when they were not always valid. You can also recover program checks from ESTAE(X). "You would want" -> "You might want". -- Regards, Gord Tomlin Action Software International (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507 Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
