Of course, but if I were going to give an example of the fast way of doing things I would give an example of the fastest way of doing things.
The example, of course, was written in the s/370 or s/390 era, so the use of storage instructions is understandable. Sometimes also you do not have a choice of whether to use something faster: your "partner" in WAIT/POST might be fixed in stone. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 2:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Eternal WAIT on un-waited ECB On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:22:51 -0700, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: >Well, it's not a "problem" (FSVO "problem") but in an example that is >supposed to show the fast way of doing things, one might avoid slower >instructions, such as storage literal references, when alternatives like >TMLH and LLILF are now available. Even with the older instructions it will be faster than doing a real POST :) (And if an application's performance characteristics are such that the difference in a few instructions in a fast-POST implementation are going to matter, should it really be using WAIT/POST, or something else altogether?) -- Walt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
