Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ?

2020-10-28 Thread Don Higgins
Melvyn, all Ah yes the 360/50 we ran MFT on with HASP. I thought it was blazing faster than 360/30 running TOS. Don Higgins d...@higgins.net www.donhiggins.org -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List On Behalf Of MELVYN MALTZ Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 4:44 PM

Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ?

2020-10-28 Thread MELVYN MALTZ
Apologies, I misremembered Found a Functional Characteristics for the 360/50 and it's 0.5uS Melvyn Maltz. - Original Message - From: "Seymour J Metz" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 6:51 PM Subject: Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ? WTF? Yes, on some models index was more expensive

Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ?

2020-10-28 Thread Seymour J Metz
WTF? Yes, on some models index was more expensive than base, but I don't know of any model where it was nearly as large as 50 microseconds. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List

Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ?

2020-10-28 Thread Gary Weinhold
I am reassured to hear the instruction being executed was being built in storage dynamically obtained for this instance.  From the conversation preceding this that was not clear and left me thinking the routine was not actually reentrant, but was writing into itself and relying on the proximity

Re: Is TESTCB a bad boy ?

2020-10-28 Thread Peter Relson
No one would say that every function is written to perform as well as it conceivably could. Especially when there is no business need. If you can demonstrate a problem due to poor performance of an existing function, then open an RFE and ask for it to be improved. But simply saying that it is