Rob,
My experience was that executing the MVC or CLC twice (first with
length 0) is better than to branch over it.
I doubt that doing something little and then full is faster than doing
it full the first time
If you observed major difference I do suspect that it is because
the first
Having the CLC near the EX helps for cache. I also like to assemble it
in-line because the right USINGs apply. We noticed that it is
attractive to run over the CLC (with the length byte 0 as assembled)
and then EX behind your back to do the real thing. More attractive
than branch over the
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Fred van der Windt
fred.van.der.wi...@mail.ing.nl wrote:
Having the CLC near the EX helps for cache. I also like to assemble it
in-line because the right USINGs apply. We noticed that it is
attractive to run over the CLC (with the length byte 0 as assembled)
of TennesseeSM and The
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of robin
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 11:40 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: How good is the EX
On Jan 16, 2012, at 22:30, robin wrote:
From: Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012 7:33 AM
CDC 3600/3800 had a Modify following instruction instruction
The S/360 and subsequent machines have one like that also.
In the case of MVC/CLC instructions :-
stc
On 1/17/2012 6:40 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I forget; is the target of EX treated as a data access or as an instruction
access for cacne management?
The 256-byte cache line containing the target instruction is loaded into
I-cache.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831
On 17 January 2012 08:09, Fred van der Windt
fred.van.der.wi...@mail.ing.nl wrote:
I did a very QD test and...
J *+10
CLC 0(1,R10),8(R10)
EXRL R1,*-6
...is about 25% faster than...
CLC 0(1,R10),8(R10)
EXRL R1,*-6
So on a z196 the jump seems to be faster than the
On 2012-01-17 07:44, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 1/17/2012 6:40 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I forget; is the target of EX treated as a data access or as an
instruction access for cacne management?
The 256-byte cache line containing the target instruction is loaded into
I-cache.
So, this would seem
From: Dan Skomsky, PSTI poodles...@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Monday, 16 January 2012 11:49 PM
One Assembler trick I have seen in speeding up scanning loops was to use a
CLI instruction to check the first byte of a string and then only doing the
CLC/CLCL if the CLI matches. This trick even works if
On Jan 16, 2012, at 07:53, robin wrote:
From: Dan Skomsky, PSTI poodles...@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Monday, 16 January 2012 11:49 PM
One Assembler trick I have seen in speeding up scanning loops was to use a
CLI instruction to check the first byte of a string and then only doing the
CLC/CLCL if
From: Rob van der Heij rvdh...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012 2:37 AM
Having the CLC near the EX helps for cache. I also like to assemble it
in-line because the right USINGs apply. We noticed that it is
attractive to run over the CLC (with the length byte 0 as assembled)
and then EX
From: Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012 7:33 AM
CDC 3600/3800 had a Modify following instruction instruction
The S/360 and subsequent machines have one like that also.
In the case of MVC/CLC instructions :-
stc 1,*+5
mvc a(0),b
can be useful.
EX does more
From: McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012 2:32 AM
OK, I hope I'm not becoming wearisome with my yammering. But I am not too busy
right now. And I still really like and
respect the z architecture (despite its horrendous price).
I ask about the CPU cost of
13 matches
Mail list logo
