In
<985915eee6984740ae93f8495c624c6c2319ba1...@jscpcwexmaa1.bsg.ad.adp.com>,
on 07/15/2013
at 07:00 PM, "Farley, Peter x23353"
said:
>Whatever their timing formulas or model-dependant behavior, in the
>old days of non-pipelined or minimally-pipelined CPU engines you ran
>your batch application
of the
information.
Having said that, I know Jim and respect him highly as a great resource.
Suffice to say that I have bookmarked the link you posted.
=
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:41:54 -0500
> From: m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Benchmark of Relative instruction
That site also provides information about the model prerequisite to a
particular version of z/VM, relegated for some odd reason to the notes
at the end.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:54:09 -0400, J R wrote:
>You shouldn't have to google to find this book.
You don't. For the correct edition of the POO, I use the page at
http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/jelliott/cmosproc.html
--
Tom Marchant
alf
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Benchmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement ones
In
<985915eee6984740ae93f8495c624c6c2319af4...@jscpcwexmaa1.bsg.ad.adp.com>,
on 07/15/2013
at 11:01 AM, "Farley
In
<985915eee6984740ae93f8495c624c6c2319af4...@jscpcwexmaa1.bsg.ad.adp.com>,
on 07/15/2013
at 11:01 AM, "Farley, Peter x23353"
said:
>I remember when I first was disabused of the quaint notion that the
>CPU performance of a batch z/OS application could be measured in a
>deterministic manner,
Peter Farley's lament is understandable, but it is important to
[better] understand that all scientific and engineering questions are
statistical in character and that they become so increasingly as a
subject advances.
Deterministic, Newtonian methods served physics well in the 17th
century; but t
2:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Benchmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement ones
Charles Mills wrote:
> In other words, if one had to venture a *guess* it would be that the
> immediate instructions were in practice a heck of a lot faster.
>
> (Don&#
ark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement ones
J R 's link works just fine... and indeed has the LGFI and others in it. Thanks
very much for this...Richard
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instr
In
,
on 07/11/2013
at 07:38 AM, John Gilmore said:
>Auden spoke of the privations of the poor, "to which they are fairly
>accustomed", and I am entirely accustomed to Shmuel's fulminations,
>which are largely predictable.
PKB.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
>Even if they are a little slower, it would not take very many eliminated
>"save and load another base register" scenarios to make up for it.
It is my understanding that if anything relative branches are faster, not
slower than base-displacement branches (at least in part because the
pipeline ca
On 11/07/2013 1:47 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:54 AM, John Eells wrote:
And, finally, that the branch instruction itself does not stand
alone. One must load a register to use it as a base in order to
establish addressability, and load another to use it as a
displacement register, and
Of my view that traditional base register-displacement coding idioms
are, at best, obsolescent, Shmuel wrote
Nonsense; they're still needed for referring to data in dynamic
storage. My general rule on such matters is that you have to cut the
bird at the joints.
which remarks prompt me to two [r
On 7/10/2013 11:54 AM, John Eells wrote:
And, finally, that the branch instruction itself does not stand alone.
One must load a register to use it as a base in order to establish
addressability, and load another to use it as a displacement register,
and Load instructions can cause real memory
In
,
on 07/10/2013
at 02:44 PM, John Gilmore said:
>Let me also take this opportunity to add my personal view that
>base-register-displacement schemes are at best obsolescent in new
>code.
Nonsense; they're still needed for referring to data in dynamic
storage. My general rule on such matter
In , on 07/10/2013
at 07:54 AM, J R said:
>You shouldn't have to google to find this book.
That's better than google not being able to find it. Where is Systems
Network Architecture Format and Protocol Reference Manual:
Architectural Logic (SC30-3112)?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysP
In , on 07/10/2013
at 07:40 AM, J R said:
>> Finding -09 (when it came out) was harder than I expected it to be, and
>> harder than I think it should be.
>And still is!
Finding the SNA manuals, e.g., Format and Protocol Logic, is just as
bad. Does anybody have links to the current editi
Charles Mills wrote:
In other words, if one had to venture a *guess* it would be that the
immediate instructions were in practice a heck of a lot faster.
(Don't know that this sort of issue is relevant to the relative versus
branch/displacement comparison.)
This is a performance question, ri
John Ehrman knows much more about what kinds of older mainframes are
still in use than I do, and I imagine that he had good reason to use
the qualifying language ". . . so if your processor supports useful
immediate operands, take advantage".
Still, the extended-immediate facility dates back ten y
frame Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of John Ehrman
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Benchmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement ones
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:30:12 -0400, Richard Verville
asked:
> Has any
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:30:12 -0400, Richard Verville
asked:
> Has anyone done benchmarks on different scenarios with instructions with
immediate & relative instructions versus the old instructions.
The more important issue is memory access: CPU speeds have increased much
faster than memory speed
LLILF LLIHF LGFI and for smaller values LAY
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on
07/09/2013 03:30:12 PM:
> From: Richard Verville
> Has anyone done benchmarks on different scenarios with instructions
> with immediate & relative instructions versus the old instructions.
> I have to rewrite
From: Charles Mills
Date: 07/10/2013 11:15 AM
This drifted into a discussion of manual links. Did anyone address
> Has anyone done benchmarks on different scenarios with instructions with
immediate & relative instructions versus the old instructions
My personal opinion are
1. I doubt tha
e Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Richard Verville
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Benchmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement ones
Has anyone done benchmarks on different scenarios with instructions with
imm
J R wrote
| You shouldn't have to google to find this book.
about the PrOp, and you need not do so. The IBM Publications Center website
http://www-05.ibm.com/e-business/linkweb/publications/servlet/pbi.wss
will give you a list of all of the available, downloadable and/or
orderable-as-hardcop
nchmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement ones
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> GIYF...
>
> "principles of operation" in the address bar of Chrome and the first link is
> the right one...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jantje.
>
>
ly include the level number. You have to
open the pdf to see which one you actually got.
===
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:55:01 -0500
> From: walt.farr...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Benchmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement ones
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
&g
In <8D261BD3BE29432A8E80B90B218DA523@RichardPC>, on 07/09/2013
at 04:51 PM, Richard Verville said:
>that link has the same manual I have already
z/Architecture Principles of Operation, SA22-7832-09?
>and the LGFI instruction is not in it
P. 7-219
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg
GIYF...
"principles of operation" in the address bar of Chrome and the first link is
the right one...
Cheers,
Jantje.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu w
chmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement
:>: ones
:>:
:>: Download from here
:>:
:>: http://www-05.ibm.com/e-
:>: business/linkweb/publications/servlet/pbi.wss?CTY=US&FNC=SRX&PBL=SA22-
:>: 7832-08
:>:
:>:
:>: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Richard Vervil
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:11:51 -0500, John McKown
wrote:
>Well, I tried JR's link and it got me the -09 version of the manual. LGFI
>is on the top of page 7-219. I don't know how I could have goofed up my
>link.
>
Your link was to -08, so either you used a site that has a downlevel version,
or so
J R 's link works just fine... and indeed has the LGFI and others in it. Thanks
very much for this...Richard
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the messa
;
> ==
>
> > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:51:13 -0400
> > From: r.vervi...@videotron.ca
> > Subject: Re: Benchmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement
> ones
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> >
> > that link has the same manual I have already
Download from here
http://www-05.ibm.com/e-business/linkweb/publications/servlet/pbi.wss?CTY=US&FNC=SRX&PBL=SA22-7832-08
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Richard Verville wrote:
> Now I feel really stupid, I went back to the POP manual I have and It's
> dated October 2001. I just tried the LGFI
Try this link:
http://publibfi.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/dz9zr009.pdf
==
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:51:13 -0400
> From: r.vervi...@videotron.ca
> Subject: Re: Benchmark of Relative instructions vers Base+displacement ones
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> that link has
that link has the same manual I have already and the LGFI instruction is not in
it, unless I'm doing something wrong. Richard
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.e
Now I feel really stupid, I went back to the POP manual I have and It's dated
October 2001. I just tried the LGFI instruction and it compiles . Now I need to
get my hands on the latest POP manual...The control register R0 has the
extraction bit (if ISVK is allowed for example) , so we could test
Why not use IILF? It inserts a full word immediate value into the lower
fullword of the specified register. There are a bunch of the IIxx
instructions to load to full word or half words into any of the 2 full word
or 4 halfwords within a given register with an immediate value. Gotta have
the proper
Has anyone done benchmarks on different scenarios with instructions with
immediate & relative instructions versus the old instructions. I have to
rewrite some code for CICS on zOS & VSE and I wonder if it's worth it. Also I
can't find a Load Fullword Immediate instruction (like LHI) where the in
39 matches
Mail list logo
