On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:14:54 -0400, Gordon G. Hodson
gordon.hod...@btopenworld.com wrote:
Original posting refers to CSF calls for encryption (processing); such
calls generally involve the use of a separate encryption hardware
engine/feature which generally has multiple parallel processing
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 06:53:12 -0400 Angel Luis DomÃnguez
angel_luis_dominguez_mar...@yahoo.es wrote:
:On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:14:54 -0400, Gordon G. Hodson
:gordon.hod...@btopenworld.com wrote:
:Original posting refers to CSF calls for encryption (processing); such
:calls generally involve the use
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:32:56 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
bdis...@dissensoftware.com wrote:
LE will LOAD the module on the first call and then BALR the later calls.
Change your ASM module to LOAD it and BALR as well.
Thanks a lot Binyamin for your appointment.
I did it and now the results are for
On 4/7/2011 9:42 AM, Angel Luis Domínguez wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:32:56 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
bdis...@dissensoftware.com wrote:
LE will LOAD the module on the first call and then BALR the later calls.
Change your ASM module to LOAD it and BALR as well.
I did it and now the results are
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.comwrote:
snip
Is it just me??
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
No.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Edward Jaffe
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote:
On 4/7/2011 9:42 AM, Angel Luis Domínguez wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:32:56 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
bdis...@dissensoftware.com wrote:
LE will LOAD the module on the first call and then BALR the later calls.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:21 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: ASM vs HLL (Was: CPU: ASSM vs ENTERPRISE COBOL - SOLVED!)
On 4/7/2011 9:42
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:20:41 -0400, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
wrote:
I keep attending IBM presentations that assert the code generated by the C
compiler will outperform assembler. Some programmers I respect have asserted the
same thing. Every time I look into this I see the
On Apr 7, 2011, at 14:02, Alex Kodat wrote:
A programmer, on the other hand, even with only a glimmer of knowledge of
what the program is doing can usually guess which if block is most likely to
be executed so optimize the code for that if block, for example by holding
registers and pointers
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Alex Kodat a...@sirius-software.com wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:20:41 -0400, Edward Jaffe
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote:
I keep attending IBM presentations that assert the code generated by the C
compiler will outperform assembler. Some programmers I
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:41 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASM vs HLL (Was: CPU: ASSM vs ENTERPRISE COBOL - SOLVED!)
snip
It is a
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:45:10 -0400, Sam Siegel s...@pscsi.net wrote:
Look at the IPA and Profile directed optimization available to the
C/C++ compiler. These features do exactly what you describe.
These look pretty cool. I'd say that PDF is closer to being able to get
the out of band
On 7 April 2011 16:02, Alex Kodat a...@sirius-software.com wrote:
There are always pieces of information that are extremely useful in optimizing
code that are simply not present in the code itself so not possible for a
compiler to use in optimization.
Some compilers, and more important, some
HLLs, which I prefer to call statement-level procedural languages (SLPLs) have
their uses, particularly for investigational, throwaway routines and report
preparation.
Much depends upon how an SLPL is taught and used. I write a lot of throwaway
PL/I; and when I do I write it much the way I
IBM Mainframe Assembler List ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU wrote on
04/07/2011 05:49:24 PM:
From: Tony Harminc t...@harminc.com
But the whole thing stinks - inventing cute tricks to pass implicit
knowledge *through* the language to the code generator. It would be
much nicer to be able to
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:47 PM, McKown, John
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
Of course, C programmers, as a general class, are not as good as HLASM
programmers in designing and implementing algorithms.
(Always beware of an argument that begins with Of course, ...)
Is this an assertion
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:30 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ASM vs HLL (Was: CPU: ASSM vs ENTERPRISE COBOL - SOLVED!)
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at
17 matches
Mail list logo
