But what about the TP shortage? Charles
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 5:12 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks) On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 23:54:58 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >If I expected a lot of bad data, I might use TP. But if I expected them to be >rare, I'd probably set an (E)SPIE. > Performance? Do the pertinent exceptions set testable condition codes with maskable interrupts? Anything but a cache fault is cheap, and TP won't throw a cache fault unless one was about to happen anyway. >________________________________________ >From: Ed Jaffe >Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 2:03 PM > >On 4/4/2020 10:29 AM, Charles Mills wrote: >> Let's say you were writing a report generator. You are processing data of >> unknown quality using field definitions generated by inexperienced >> programmers, and report programs written by non-programmers. You might >> expect a fair number of arithmetic operations on packed fields that >> contained invalid data, and a fair number of divisions by zero. Let's posit >> that ABENDing on the first such condition is not acceptable to user >> management. >> >> Would you use ESPIE to trap S0C7's and S0C9's, or would you validate the >> data with explicit "hand-coded" tests before every arithmetic operation? > >The TP (TEST DECIMAL) instruction comes in handy here... -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
