[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
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
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
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
, 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
[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
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
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
/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
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
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
: 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
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
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo