In article <CAAJSdjioEkoLvsT9N+=akytysnwax0qxnqnkpbwp5z3+tpo...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:26 PM Walt Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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?) > > > ???Isn't IBM "pushing" SUSPEND/RESUME over WAIT/POST for application (not > system interface) code? ??? > > > > -- > > Walt > > > > > -- > There is no such thing as the Cloud. It is just somebody else???s computer. > Maranatha! <>< > John McKown I think you're thinking of PAUSE/RELEASE. SUSPEND/RESUME requires sup state/key 0. We haven't found PAUSE/RELEASE to be faster than WAIT/POST and there are many API's that still use ECBs, so it's going to probably be around forever. -- Don Poitras - SAS Development - SAS Institute Inc. - SAS Campus Drive [email protected] (919) 531-5637 Cary, NC 27513 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
