I know what you're saying, and would normally agree where "incremental" performance benefits were expected - knocking up a couple of test programs may not reflect what would normally occur.
However, this is far from incremental. V4 generates "ESA" machine-code. ABO can do ARCH 10 or 11. In the example, DFP (if used by ABO) is going to provide substantial performance improvements on arithmetic with zoned-decimal. There is still improved performance with packed-decimal. Leads to the idea that all decimal arithmetic will improve. I few verification programs before tossing it at real programs seems to me a good idea, in this type of case. If something doesn't work as expected, it can be investigated in isolation, without having to untie it from other stuff, or, more likely, miss it altogether. On Friday, 1 April 2016 08:49:21 UTC+1, Andrew Rowley wrote: > On 01/04/2016 06:26 PM, Bill Woodger wrote: > > Andrew, I don't think it would be difficult at all. Especially for ARCH 11, > > there's some substantial differences in that example of what code would be > > possible (with V5 or V6), so it will be interesting to see if the ABO takes > > full advantage. > > I'm not doubting that there would be benefits, just whether you could > quantify them from a test program. It's hard to predict whether the > benefits would be more, less or the same. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
