Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-16 Thread Rick Arellanes
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

Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-16 Thread Chase, John
-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

Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-16 Thread Mike Schwab
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

Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-15 Thread Ron Thomas
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

Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-15 Thread Elardus Engelbrecht
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

Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-15 Thread Dale R. Smith
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

Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-15 Thread Chase, John
-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

Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-15 Thread John Gilmore
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

Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-15 Thread Ron Thomas
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

Re: Performance in S9(08) COMP

2014-10-15 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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