On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:08:05 -0500, Ron Thomas ron5...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok. So what i understand is there will not be a performance degradation , the
compiler option in our installation is set as Trunc(bin).
Thanks
Ron T
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rick Arellanes
You might want to read the COBOL Performance Tuning paper (for Enterprise
COBOL 4.2) at:
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=203q=7018287uid=swg27018287
to see the performance implications
z/OS 2.1 Cobol 5.1 Performance tuning.
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/31c890c6-ace1-4eeb-af6b-5950f3a1a5d1/entry/enterprise_cobol_for_z_os_v5r1_performance_tuning_guide_now_available?lang=en
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27042388
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at
Hi .
In our cobol programs we have the variables declared as s9(09) COMP, now one
of the experts in our area is proposing to use s9(08) COMP as this would give
better performace . Could some one please let us know whether the change is
going to provide good performance ?
Thanks in Advance
Ron Thomas wrote:
In our cobol programs we have the variables declared as s9(09) COMP, now one
of the experts in our area is proposing to use s9(08) COMP as this would give
better performace .
Based on what (documentation / experience) did that expert made that suggestion?
Could some one
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:46:51 -0500, Ron Thomas ron5...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi .
In our cobol programs we have the variables declared as s9(09) COMP, now one
of the experts in our area is proposing to use s9(08) COMP as this would give
better performace . Could some one please let us know
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ron Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Performance in S9(08) COMP
Hi .
In our cobol programs we have the variables declared as s9(09) COMP, now one
The range of a signed twos-complement fullword binary integer value F
is, by definition,
-2^31 = F = +2^31 - 1,
-2147483648 = F = +2147483247.
Even the largest and smallest such values contain at least 9 [and
sometime 10] notional decimal digits. Where it is still available
either the NOTRUNC
Ok. So what i understand is there will not be a performance degradation , the
compiler option in our installation is set as Trunc(bin).
Thanks
Ron T
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:02:11 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
In general truncations to decimal digits are a bad, even diseased,
idea for binary data.
Reminds me on the time when, on ASSEMBLER-LIST, I wondered
why Packed Decimal uses sign-magnitude rather than 10's
complement representation.
o 10's
10 matches
Mail list logo