Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-05 Thread George Haddad
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:02 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CMSCALL return code Sheesh, this goes way back to my good old Assembler diaper days when programmers really cared about performance instead of drag and drop

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Schuh, Richard
definitions. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Rarick Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CMSCALL return code For a return code, LA R15,value is *much* faster than a L

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Mike Walter
System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/04/2006 11:37 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: CMSCALL return code True, and it is undoubtedly faster to use SR R15,R15 than it is to use LA R15,0 to zero the register

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Ray Mullins
Subject: Re: CMSCALL return code Sheesh, this goes way back to my good old Assembler diaper days when programmers really cared about performance instead of drag and drop solutions. Slightly off-topic: if I remember correctly, we argued intensely about zeroing a GPR and the performance differences

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Schuh, Richard
, December 04, 2006 12:02 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CMSCALL return code Sheesh, this goes way back to my good old Assembler diaper days when programmers really cared about performance instead of drag and drop solutions. Slightly off-topic: if I remember correctly, we argued intensely

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Schuh, Richard
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Mullins Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CMSCALL return code There is a new option now, especially with non-zero codes: LHI R15,4 No storage fetch. The subject of instruction timings on IBM-MAIN

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Alan Altmark
On Monday, 12/04/2006 at 02:33 PST, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pipelining a machine and adding caches does throw a monkey wrench into the discussion. Add interrupts and you really have a mess. That is one reason why the performance guys like to preface every sentence with YMMV or

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread pfa
To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: CMSCALL return code Sheesh, this goes way back to my good old Assembler diaper days when programmers really cared about performance instead of drag and drop solutions. Slightly off-topic: if I remember correctly, we argued intensely about zeroing

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Mike Walter
/2006 04:43 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: CMSCALL return code On Monday, 12/04/2006 at 02:33 PST, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pipelining a machine and adding caches does throw a monkey wrench

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Schuh, Richard
Are you wishing that you were 30 years younger? -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:56 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CMSCALL return code Ha!! We only *WISH* we were

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-04 Thread Rich Greenberg
On: Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 02:24:39PM -0800,Schuh, Richard Wrote: } IIRC, the times for SR and XR were the same on the Amdahl machines, at } least on the ones that came after the 470. They may have been the same } on the 470, as well. I do recall that on the Amdahl 470s, there was one pair of

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-12-01 Thread Stanley Rarick
: CMSCALL return code Schuh, Richard wrote: I agree, it does seem non-intuitive. The initial SR R15,R15 was undoubtedly preparing for a default rc of zero. How the non-zero rc gets put into the register later is largely a matter of taste. In this case I probably would have chosen L R15

CMSCALL return code

2006-11-22 Thread Richard Corak
If your habit was to use L Rx,=X'...' you were probably lucky in the old days the =X literal would not necessarily be word-aligned, causing two fetches to load the register, or, in the days when alignment really mattered... a program exception. Not true. Assemblers going back to F

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-11-22 Thread Schuh, Richard
Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Corak Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:23 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: CMSCALL return code If your habit was to use L Rx,=X'...' you were probably lucky in the old days the =X literal would

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-11-21 Thread Schuh, Richard
Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Russell Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:46 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CMSCALL return code Schuh, Richard wrote: I agree, it does seem non-intuitive. The initial SR R15,R15

Re: CMSCALL return code

2006-11-21 Thread Shimon Lebowitz
On 21 Nov 2006 at 17:32, Schuh, Richard wrote: However, it might not have been as chancy as it may seem. The literal pool is doubleword aligned and boundary alignment may have been a factor in determining where the literal resided. I would like to think that the 8-byte multiples are put at